ORDERS-INCOUNCIL.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19144, 29 October 1927, Page 16

ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL.

PRACTICE CONDEMNED.

SAFEGUARDING PUBLIC INTEREST. The only item in the annual report of the Associated Chambers of Commerce which was called into question was that relating to Orders-in-Council. It was as follows: "A lengthy reply was received from the Minister for Finance defending the action of the Government in legislating by Order-in-Coun-cil. He pointed out the advantages of incorporating in Statutes only a statement of the main principles of legislation, and the most important provisions, and delegating the power of modifying, extending, or applying their operation in changed circumstances. He also pointed out that whilst Orders-in-Coun-cil are not necessarily ratified by Parliament, the course is followed of laying important Orders-in-Council and Regulations on the table of the House for scrutiny and control. He made the further point that the general safeguard against improper or uiulesirable legislation is the criticism and scrutiny of persons who may be affected by them. The Exocutive is of opinion, that if all the conditions laid down in the Minister's letter are carried out, the moderate application of the system may be defended." A letter received from Mr A. F. Wright was as follows:

"There is one matter dealt with in the report- which I hardly think should go forward as the report of the Chambers —it is (hat portion of it dealing with Orders-in-Council. The principles enunciated by the Minister for Finance, as set out in the report, are the very things to which exception has been taken upon this important matter. As the Chamber of Commerce has consistently taken up a stand against there being more than a due alloy of Order-in-Council in connexion with our Acts, I should be sorry to see it recede from this position. A perusal of a few of the Bills of the present session, viz., the Inspection of Machinery Bill (which put the regulations in the very forefront of tho Act, but which. I am glad to see, was not acceptable to the House), the Legislature Act Amendment Bill, Rural Intermediate Credits Bill—these are all instances of very important matters being left to regulation. The Rural Intermediate Credits Bill gives the Governor-in-Council power to repeal certain sections of the Companies Act as it affects that Bill, and also gives power to make regulations as to the marketing of products secured by loan under that Bill. At the present time there seems to be some indication that the protests of the various Chambers of Commerce are having some effect, and I think it is rather to be regretted ] that the reference to Orders-in-Coun- j cil in the report should be couched in the form in which it is." j

Only in Cases of Urgency. Mr A. G. Lunn (Auckland) moved that the executive's expression of opinion on Orders-in-Council be deleted. Only in cases of extreme urgency, he said, should Orders-in-Council lie resorted to. Mr H. S. E. Turner (Canterbury) strongly supported the amendment. For mere machinery alterations of legislation, he said, we had to rely on Orders-in-Council, but the experience of the country in. the last five years showed that the Government was not prepared to limit itself in this way. A very good article in The Pkess that morning had pointed out the manner in which the bus regulations had been passed. There were many things which showed that the Government was not prepared to confine itself to a moderate appreciation of its powers. To delegate the power of modifying or extending an Act to an official who was not in the House to sustain his reasons was taking a very great risk. Who was to judge of what was of sufficient importance to be laid before the House? Criticism and scrutiny had not modified the bus regulations. Orders-in-Council should be strictly limited. Mr A. H. Mackrell defined the attitude of the executive. Great Powers. Another delegate detailed a personal experience of the Government's powers, which had been found so great in the matter of the inspection of machinery that he had been identified with a protest to the Labour Bills Committee, as the result of which the objectionable provisions had been struck out. Mr W. Gow (Dunedin) said that government by Order-in-Council was becoming a crying evil in Now Zealand." He saw no reason why the principle of legislation by Act of Parliament should not pertain, as in Britain and other countries. "We ought to make a strong protest," he said. Ho gave notice of further amendment to delete the reference in the report, and said he would bring the matter up again later. Mr C. P. Agar (Canterbury) suggested also that the reference be deleted. The matter could be dealt with later.

Mr Machin (president) said the executive had tried to put a just interpretation on the Minister's Letter, and hoped the Cabinet would not do it again. There was no division among them, as all felt in the same way. Mr Lunn then worded his amendment as follows:

"The executive is nevertheless of opinion that all legislation by Order-in-Council is improper, and Orders-in-Coun-cil should be limited to the issue of such machinery clauses or regulations as may be necessary to give effect to Acts of Parliament.' '

Mr Turner was the seconder, and the amendment was carried unanimously. The report was then adopted with the alterations.