1. Forum
  2. Usenet NZ Messa
  3. NZ.GENERAL

  • Do we need two Houses of Parliament?

    From Rich80105@3:770/3 to All on Monday, January 01, 2018 20:04:52
    It probably depends on how members are elected or appointed, and on
    its duties, but there seem to be good reasons why we abolished our
    upper house 67 years ago: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/legislative-council-abolished
    There appears to be virtually no support for re-establishing a second
    house.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From bowesjohn02@gmail.com@3:770/3 to All on Monday, January 01, 2018 00:23:47
    On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 8:05:00 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
    It probably depends on how members are elected or appointed, and on
    its duties, but there seem to be good reasons why we abolished our
    upper house 67 years ago: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/legislative-council-abolished
    There appears to be virtually no support for re-establishing a second
    house.

    Looks like something your glorious leader would be more than happy to have Rich. Then she could do whatever she wants without having to worry about that troublesome party that won the election :)

    Pooh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From HitAnyKey@3:770/3 to All on Monday, January 01, 2018 20:46:04
    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 20:04:52 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    It probably depends on how members are elected or appointed, and on its duties, but there seem to be good reasons why we abolished our upper
    house 67 years ago:
    https://nzhistory.govt.nz/legislative-council-abolished There appears to
    be virtually no support for re-establishing a second house.

    The article is incomplete in fact and misleading in tone.

    For example, it gives the impression that abolishing the Legislative
    Council figuratively gave rise to dancing in the streets as a
    consequence. It makes no mention that there were real concerns about the effects of abolishing the Upper House, or that a Constitutional Reform Committee was set up to consider alternative ways of safeguarding the
    country from hasty legislation. Indeed, it recommended in 1952 that
    there should be a Senate of 32 members empowered to delay legislation by
    up to two months. No action was taken on the proposal.

    But the issue persisted. In 1960 the incoming (National) Government
    inherited a petition that had been presented to the previous Parliament
    seeking a written constitution for New Zealand, and a second chamber of Parliament. Public hearings were held, but the Petitions Committee
    reported that it had no recommendation to make. So nothing was done
    (again).

    This isn’t really surprising. By 1960, politicians had had a taste of
    powers unfettered by the checks and balances represented in an Upper
    House. They liked it that way, so they simply ignored the question. And
    that remains unchanged today. The main focus of resistance to the idea
    of an Upper House when it resurfaces from time to time is not the public
    but the politicians themselves. Neither of the two main Parties is
    willing to consider giving up unicameral powers for the sake of meeting concerns at the absence of the checks and balances accorded by an Upper
    House. Among the usual excuses is that we are too small – and/or too efficient - to need the burden of accommodating a second Chamber.

    You want cites for all this? Googling produces many, but here’s one of
    them:

    https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/government-parliament/page-4

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Rich80105@3:770/3 to nobody@nowhere.com on Tuesday, January 02, 2018 11:58:34
    On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 20:46:04 -0000 (UTC), HitAnyKey
    <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 20:04:52 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    It probably depends on how members are elected or appointed, and on its
    duties, but there seem to be good reasons why we abolished our upper
    house 67 years ago:
    https://nzhistory.govt.nz/legislative-council-abolished There appears to
    be virtually no support for re-establishing a second house.

    The article is incomplete in fact and misleading in tone.

    For sure it is incomplete, but I don't think it is misleading in
    eother tome or facts stated.


    For example, it gives the impression that abolishing the Legislative
    Council figuratively gave rise to dancing in the streets as a
    consequence.
    I didn;t take that from the article - if anything it seems to have
    been seen as an inevitable decision for a Council that had ceased to
    be relevant or effective.

    It makes no mention that there were real concerns about the
    effects of abolishing the Upper House, or that a Constitutional Reform >Committee was set up to consider alternative ways of safeguarding the
    country from hasty legislation. Indeed, it recommended in 1952 that
    there should be a Senate of 32 members empowered to delay legislation by
    up to two months. No action was taken on the proposal.
    You are right, and thank you for the reference below. The setting up
    of a Committee and then ignoring its recommendations is common from
    some governments - with the added 'feature' now of limited terms of
    reference to avoid discussions the government deems unnecessary.

    But the issue persisted. In 1960 the incoming (National) Government >inherited a petition that had been presented to the previous Parliament >seeking a written constitution for New Zealand, and a second chamber of >Parliament. Public hearings were held, but the Petitions Committee
    reported that it had no recommendation to make. So nothing was done
    (again).

    This isn’t really surprising. By 1960, politicians had had a taste of
    powers unfettered by the checks and balances represented in an Upper
    House.
    Both the article I referred to and your reference below give the
    impression that the Legislative Council had for many years not
    provided any real checks and balances.

    They liked it that way, so they simply ignored the question. And
    that remains unchanged today. The main focus of resistance to the idea
    of an Upper House when it resurfaces from time to time is not the public
    but the politicians themselves. Neither of the two main Parties is
    willing to consider giving up unicameral powers for the sake of meeting >concerns at the absence of the checks and balances accorded by an Upper >House.
    Both articles were written before MMP when the "two main parties"were
    dominant - but I am not aware of any party that now wants a second
    chamber.

    Among the usual excuses is that we are too small – and/or too
    efficient - to need the burden of accommodating a second Chamber.

    Indeed there are calls for the numbers of MPs to be reduced - usually
    on the grounds of cost, but underlying that there are often overtones
    of allowing even fewer constraints on government or Cabinet; quite the
    reverse of what those proposing a second chamber purport to want.


    You want cites for all this? Googling produces many, but here’s one of
    them:

    https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/government-parliament/page-4

    Thanks - my quick search gave the one I cited; I agree that the
    hostory is richer than any single article. The question as to whether
    we need two houses does hoever appear to be a dead issue for most New Zealanders - proposals to get rid of the Maori seats get far more
    media time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Tony @3:770/3 to HitAnyKey on Monday, January 01, 2018 19:24:23
    HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 20:04:52 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    It probably depends on how members are elected or appointed, and on its
    duties, but there seem to be good reasons why we abolished our upper
    house 67 years ago:
    https://nzhistory.govt.nz/legislative-council-abolished There appears to
    be virtually no support for re-establishing a second house.

    The article is incomplete in fact and misleading in tone.

    For example, it gives the impression that abolishing the Legislative
    Council figuratively gave rise to dancing in the streets as a
    consequence. It makes no mention that there were real concerns about the >effects of abolishing the Upper House, or that a Constitutional Reform >Committee was set up to consider alternative ways of safeguarding the
    country from hasty legislation. Indeed, it recommended in 1952 that
    there should be a Senate of 32 members empowered to delay legislation by
    up to two months. No action was taken on the proposal.

    But the issue persisted. In 1960 the incoming (National) Government >inherited a petition that had been presented to the previous Parliament >seeking a written constitution for New Zealand, and a second chamber of >Parliament. Public hearings were held, but the Petitions Committee
    reported that it had no recommendation to make. So nothing was done
    (again).

    This isn’t really surprising. By 1960, politicians had had a taste of >powers unfettered by the checks and balances represented in an Upper
    House. They liked it that way, so they simply ignored the question. And >that remains unchanged today. The main focus of resistance to the idea
    of an Upper House when it resurfaces from time to time is not the public
    but the politicians themselves. Neither of the two main Parties is
    willing to consider giving up unicameral powers for the sake of meeting >concerns at the absence of the checks and balances accorded by an Upper >House. Among the usual excuses is that we are too small – and/or too >efficient - to need the burden of accommodating a second Chamber.

    You want cites for all this? Googling produces many, but here’s one of >them:

    https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/government-parliament/page-4
    I think we have been fortunate for many decades, perhaps it is our size but there have been no really terrible matters that needed intervention by a second house. There is the Governor General who has theoretically enough power to instruct the government in certain situations as happened in Australia some years ago. I believe a second house is a good idea but that is unlikely to have political support for the reasons you state. The cost of a second house is not a problem for me, democracy is always expensive and we could reduce the size of our current house as compensation. A constitutional crisis may trigger debate however.
    Tony

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From jmschristophers@gmail.com@3:770/3 to HitAnyKey on Monday, January 01, 2018 17:24:39
    On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 9:46:05 AM UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 20:04:52 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    It probably depends on how members are elected or appointed, and on its duties, but there seem to be good reasons why we abolished our upper
    house 67 years ago:
    https://nzhistory.govt.nz/legislative-council-abolished There appears to
    be virtually no support for re-establishing a second house.

    The article is incomplete in fact and misleading in tone.

    For example, it gives the impression that abolishing the Legislative
    Council figuratively gave rise to dancing in the streets as a
    consequence. It makes no mention that there were real concerns about the effects of abolishing the Upper House, or that a Constitutional Reform Committee was set up to consider alternative ways of safeguarding the country from hasty legislation. Indeed, it recommended in 1952 that
    there should be a Senate of 32 members empowered to delay legislation by
    up to two months. No action was taken on the proposal.

    But the issue persisted. In 1960 the incoming (National) Government inherited a petition that had been presented to the previous Parliament seeking a written constitution for New Zealand, and a second chamber of Parliament. Public hearings were held, but the Petitions Committee
    reported that it had no recommendation to make. So nothing was done (again).

    This isn’t really surprising. By 1960, politicians had had a taste of powers unfettered by the checks and balances represented in an Upper
    House. They liked it that way, so they simply ignored the question. And that remains unchanged today. The main focus of resistance to the idea
    of an Upper House when it resurfaces from time to time is not the public
    but the politicians themselves. Neither of the two main Parties is
    willing to consider giving up unicameral powers for the sake of meeting concerns at the absence of the checks and balances accorded by an Upper House. Among the usual excuses is that we are too small – and/or too efficient - to need the burden of accommodating a second Chamber.

    You want cites for all this? Googling produces many, but here’s one of them:

    https://teara.govt.nz/en/1966/government-parliament/page-4

    Good post and cite, and thank you.

    Here's a cite from author Bill Pearson's perceptive article, "Fretful Sleepers"
    published not far short of 70 years ago:

    "The New Zealander delegates authority, then forgets it. He has shrugged off responsibility and wants to be left alone. There is no one more docile in the face of authority. He pleads rationalizations, ‘doesn’t want to make a fuss’ or ‘make a
    fool of himself’, but generally he does what he is told, partly because everyone else is doing it, partly because he wants to be sociable and co-operate in a wishfully untroubled world. Only when things go visibly wrong does he recall his right to
    question the authority and change it. When he complains half his bitterness is that he has been made to complain because he hates complaint and can’t complain with dignity. Anyone who questions too often is a ‘moaner’, yet in
    new Zealand the moaner
    is common. Things never run so smoothly as the New Zealander pretends. So he is
    suspicious of politics...."


    Full article at:

    https://publicaddress.net/great-new-zealand-argument/fretful-sleepers/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Gordon@3:770/3 to rich80105@hotmail.com on Tuesday, January 02, 2018 03:50:07
    On 2018-01-01, Rich80105 <rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
    It probably depends on how members are elected or appointed, and on
    its duties, but there seem to be good reasons why we abolished our
    upper house 67 years ago: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/legislative-council-abolished
    There appears to be virtually no support for re-establishing a second
    house.

    Britan needs to houses as the Queen will not go to the House of Commons.

    The House of Lords is from days way past when only the upper crust could
    vote. No women, no common people.

    The issue is one of, if we have another House, who the heck will reside in there. More politicans. How the hell can they be impatial?

    So we end up with the US of A way. Courts, staked with "favourable" judges.

    Look, democracy is about the people. We elect these MP's and if they
    misbehave we should either vote them out or protest in the streets on mass until they leave the house.

    We the people employ these people.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Judges1318@3:770/3 to All on Tuesday, January 02, 2018 10:35:40
    On Mon, 01 Jan 2018 20:04:52 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

    It probably depends on how members are elected or appointed, and on its duties, but there seem to be good reasons why we abolished our upper
    house 67 years ago:
    https://nzhistory.govt.nz/legislative-council-abolished There appears to
    be virtually no support for re-establishing a second house.

    Neither is there any support for racially segregated electorate.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)