NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. (Hansard, 2 December 1947)

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
My Lords, I am sure the House will grant me the Second Reading of this Bill. It is interesting to note that the Dominion of New Zealand, since 1857, has not required any intervention by this House and its Constitution was set up only in 1852. There are certain limitations of the power of the New Zealand Government as so constituted. The Statute of Westminster, in Section 8, provides that: Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution … of the Commonwealth of Australia or … New Zealand otherwise that in accordance with the law existing before the commencement of this Act. That would be the law of 1857. The Statute goes on to say, in Section 10 (2): The Parliament of any such Dominion as aforesaid may at any time revoke the adoption of any section referred to in subsection (1) of this section. And New Zealand is mentioned as one of the Dominions so entitled.
1019 This Bill seeks to remove the limitations imposed hitherto on the Government of New Zealand and gives them complete freedom, which is only logical and reasonable, to amend their Constitution according to their own wishes. That, I may say, has already been done in the cases of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Union of South Africa. In the case of Canada there are special provisions in the British North America Act which relate to Canada in a different way. This Bill means, in effect, that the complete independence of New Zealand is hereby accorded, although New Zealand has, in fact, been independent for a long time, and we have received in full measure the value of its co-operation independently and freely given. I should like to quote what Mr. Fraser, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, said in the New Zealand Parliament: If the adoption of the Statute of Westminster were to lessen the tie between New Zealand and the Empire I would have nothing to do with it, but my opinion is that if this Statute were adopted it would strengthen the tie. I am quite sure that every one of us will be heartily in accord with that statement. We all know what New Zealand's independence and freedom to make their own contribution to Empire needs have meant in two great wars, and I feel sure that the House will gladly take this opportunity of paying tribute to that splendid and loyal member of the British Commonwealth. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I am quite certain that this Bill needs no commendation from me, for in what he has said the Leader of the House has spoken for all Parties alike in the State, but I think it is perhaps fitting that one word should be said from these Benches in support of a measure which is so fully in harmony with the traditions and spirit which animate the British Commonwealth. The essence of this Commonwealth of Nations to which we belong is that it is a living organism which constantly develops and constantly evolves in accordance with changing circumstances. In the old days New Zealand was still, if I may say so, in a stage of 1020 adolescence and was still dependent to some degree on the Mother Country. To-day she is a nation that has achieved full maturity. She is a nation that under the Statute of Westminster in all respects is equal to ourselves and a member of the United Nations, wise and experienced. Such a nation clearly is no longer in need of any leading strings and the limitations to her freedom of action in amending her own Constitution have ipso facto become an anachronism.
If she is closer to us than ever before, as I believe she is, it is not because of any such statutory ties as that; it is because she shares with us in loyalty to the Throne, a common outlook, and an independent and undying allegiance to all that the Commonwealth stands for. New Zealand, as the noble Viscount has said, has an unsurpassed record of staunch championship of those undying principles of liberty and justice which are inseparably connected with the name of Britain. For these principles her people have already shown in two world wars that they are willing both to live and to die. For such a nation, which may be small in size but which is certainly great in stature, such restrictions as are brought to an end by this Bill have become a palpable absurdity, and we in this Parliament of the United Kingdom are therefore glad to join with her in relegating them to the limbo of the past.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
My Lords, we on these Benches gladly join in promoting the passage of this Bill. In passing it, let us send to New Zealand a message not only of our respect but of our deep affection for that great Dominion.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
My Lords, may I add one word in entire concurrence with what has been said? I think it would be of some interest to observe that this Statute marks a very interesting development from the constitutional point of view. Those of us who have had to study pretty closely the development of Constitutions inside the Commonwealth but outside this island must mark the occasion. The old system which was adopted in the case of the Constitution of New Zealand was for this Parliament to enact, no doubt with the concurrence of the authorities in New Zealand, a constitutional scheme which could not in all res- 1021 pects be altered by the New Zealand Legislature itself. New Zealand stood, in fact, in a rather curious position, because they had certain powers of altering their Constitution but those powers were not complete. It might be of some slight interest to your Lordships to be told that one power which they have not hitherto possessed is power to abolish the bicameral system. But there were certain respects in which, under the old law, they could change their Constitution in New Zealand. I think it is a thoroughly beneficial thing that these powers, which as a matter of form the old Parliament confers or enlarges—because it is only as a matter of form that we do it; it is really they who ask us to do it, and we willingly accept—should be enlarged.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House, incidentally, referred to the case of Canada. There is, of course, a difference, because the Constitution of Canada is a federal Constitution, and the British North America Act of 1867, therefore, as the Fathers of the Canadian Federation desired in their resolutions in Quebec, strikes a rather elaborate balance which makes certain that the rights of the centre and the rights of the provinces are adjusted. It follows that in the case of the British North America Act there has continued to be alteration by this House only at the request of Canada. Indeed, the powers of the Canadian Legislature to alter the Constitution are somewhat limited. In the same way in the case of Australia, which again is in the nature of a federation of States, there are provisions for altering its Constitution by Australian Act but very special conditions have to be fulfilled. That is really the difference between a federal Constitution and a unitary Constitution such as that of New Zealand.
It just so happens that I have in the course of my life had a good deal to do with studying these things. I thought your Lordships would excuse me for adding this purely subordinate note, because when we do carry with all possible good will that which our fellow subjects of New Zealand desire, it is right that we should note in the Imperial Parliament what is the nature of the tendency which we are following. It is one about which everyone agrees. I am sure there will be found in the new Indian Constitution a power to alter their own structure. It is most remarkable that ever since 1857, ninety 1022 years ago, such has been the contentment with which New Zealand has lived under its existing Constitution that it has never even asked this Parliament to alter it