Minister Of Justice Dodges Motor Unions

Chronicle (Levin), 16 June 1949, Page 8

Minister Of Justice Dodges Motor Unions

Eeluct.anCe - by. the JifiiiisteP of tiee (Mr Mason) and tbe Under-feeere-tavy of Justice (Mr B. L. Ballard) to disclose to tbe Nortli Island- and Sout.i Island Motor Unions the number onlv of remisSions or paftial remissions of disqualification penalties imposed by Courts on motorists convicted of intoxr-. eation itt ebarg'e of vehicl'es is the sub iect of critieism by tbe ''New Zealand Motor W'orld," tbe offieial orgbn of thc 14 New Zealand butomobile associations in this month's issue. "Tlie eiforts of tbe Mihister of Justice to avoid supplying the MotoV triiions With the number of instances of remissions of discpialification pen alties . can leave the public with but oiie conclhsioii, ' ' states the "Moto* World. " The public has cause f or uneasiness, causfe for assuming that, whatBV'er the ntiniber of remissions » . . that humb'et is not one which would prove phlutable to the public or soundly defensible from the Dep&rtment's poin? of view." "This attempt by the motor unions to extract from the Department mformation in tbe public 's interest has covpfed ' the better part of a year," sta'tes the "Motor World." "Initially the uuious asked for the actnaT figures over the past three years relating to convictionS, and for the number of remissions granted when there have been second offences. "Mr B. Dallard, in his reply to the simple request, referred to 'the very small percentage of cases iii which alleviation is atforded.' On the other hand, the Eoad Safety Couneil, which is controlled by the Transport Department, and is representative of many road using interests, viewed 'with ap prehension the considerable proportion of cases where r'emission is made in the period of discpialification.' Why The Reluctance? "Mr Dallard, curiously, has balked the issue, along with the Minister, though both have access to .the eorrect figures. It can be contended, and rightly, that the figures of the Department of Justice give the authentic picture. If it is, why the reluctance to disclose them? "Seemingly, Mr Mason shares this reluctance for, when the motor unions drew his attention to the refusal of liis Department to supply the information, he replied thus: — 'As recpiested, I am replying to your letter complaining of the reply reeeived frOm the UnderSecretary of Justice, and protesting against refusal to supply information and asserting that in a demoeratic eommunity we have a right to the information asked for. I fear you misconceive your rights. Departments and Ministers, like other people, owe an obligation of courtesy and they have public duties to perform. This does not mean that they must eomply with every arbitrary demand and from whatever quarter. They are, of course, responsible to Parliament for fulfilling their proper obligations. ' "-Sureiy, that is a ti'ite reply from the Minister who must be aware that the administration of justice is being exposed to question by the failure to provide the figures of remissions, and thus allay public uneasiness. If, as in totalitarian eountries, the people in this demoeratic land are denied the simple right to ask for, and reeeive, ligures relating to .their accepted system of justice, there still remains the opportunity, up to this dUy at any rate, of reeourse to Parliament. ' 1 Departments and Ministers, says the Minister, 'are, of course, responsible to Parliament for fulfilling their proper obligations.' Of course! This is still a demoeratic State and it wouid seem that there was 110 misconception about our rights. There is the inherent right to expect the information, and get it, throUgh Parliament," the article concludes.