The Dominion WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1942. DANGERS OF HASTY LEGISLATION

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 22, 21 October 1942, Page 4

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1942. DANGERS OF HASTY LEGISLATION

The normal Parliamentary procedure for dealing with legislative proposals may seem to some people to. be cumbersome and slow, but it did not evolve without good reason. When a Bill is introduced in Parliament it has to be read a first time and printed. The next step usually is, or used to be, to circulate copies of the Bill so that members may study its provisions and discuss their merits at the second reading stage with full knowledge of -what is proposed to be done. After the second reading debate, which affords complete scope for the expression of opinions for or against, the Bill is set down for consideration, on some future day in committee. When the House ultimately goes into committee the Bill is examined clause by clause in the light of the previous discussions and frequently with the further advantage of knowing what the public reactions to the measure have been, for the processes already mentioned have enabled the public to learn what the Bill proposes to do and how it is likely to affect them. After the Bill emerges from the committee stage it has to undergo a third reading debate before it passes. The procedure here briefly outlined—which used to be the normal course followed —usually extended over several days or, on occasions when the Bill was of importance, weeks. The purpose of this slow and orderly progress was to afford adequate time for examination and consideration of all the possible implications and effects of the proposed legislation, not only by members of Parliament but by the general public, and especially by those likely to be directly affected by its provisions. It was one of the safeguards and a vital safeguard against hasty, ill-considered or unjust enactments prejudicial to the public interest. Not only did it tend to prevent hardship and possibly injustice but it also enabled the community as an interested party to the proceedings to follow intelligently the work of the Parliament it had elected. Unfortunately in recent times, partly as the result of war conditions but partly also due to a tendency to rush legislation on to the statute books by use of the closure to serve party ends, the plea of urgency has almost completely eliminated the normal procedure. Bills of importance to the community are on occasions introduced and rushed through all their stages at the one sitting. Often the public know nothing of new legislation until it has become the law or until it is too late to make representations regarding it. Members of Parliament themselves not infrequently are asked to express views on and to pass into law Bills which only a few minutes before have been for the first time placed in their hands for perusal. To pretend that due time for consideration and study can in such circumstances be given to the legislation before Parliament is manifestly absurd. Conceding that in wartime some relaxation of the forms of procedure may be desirable on occasions calling for urgency, there is no excuse for such rush practices becoming the general rule in matters of purely domestic legislation. It is time that this was realized and the interests of the public more adequately safeguarded. It can be said of the Dominion Parliament, as has been said of the House of Commons, that since the outbreak of war it has not been overworked. If the Executive has perforce to give the greater part of its attention to military and other matters there is all the more reason why members should give more detailed consideration to whatever domestic legislation is deemed necessary.