Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1933. EVADING THE ISSUE.

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 74, 29 March 1933, Page 6

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1933. EVADING THE ISSUE.

Defending the process of legislation by Orders in Council in his address to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce yesterday, the% Prime Minister resorted to the tactics of the pot which called the kettle black. He complained that the recent criticiisms of the Government for its alleged abuse of this process were not sufficiently specific, but his defence was confined to such tenuous1 generalities as to be quite valueless. A' matter .relating to the administration of ■•mortgagors' 7 'relief" was described- by the:. Minister of. Justice yesterday.as "really one' for the Prime .Minister in his •.capacity of Attorney-Generafli^^ ; Th£. Auckland speech' sh'owsrrjharjn -the".tactics of;. eyasi6^vat;any|'3natei fhe':nevj Attor-ney-Gfe^^i'-Jia^-JittleJ'-to. learn from, any of the.moTe^expert. members of th'ej pcofe^ijn^He^can- vie iw&h • the best;"otctEein' irt: :his easyrmastery of the^legal^xmvthat the crafty; man conges viiiihselfvtb (generalities.' No wiggVdjjAttorMy-Gerieiral; 'could have marshall.^J ijirrelevant generalities in defenpej'of,.a hopeless case' with a inbre^conviiicing emphasis than that displayed; by.; this';,promisirig " beginner^ It was suggested by one of the Judges; in the' Court .of Appeal yesterday that under the powers delegated..:.to toe Minister of. Industries and ~Gpnimerce'','by' -the, Board of Trade/{Act .it niight be .possible for hirir to- prevent die Supreme- Court, until'further order from' the Minister, from admitting any more' solicitors. If. we could all get along with-' out any legal learning as well as our lay Attorney-General this might be no great calamity. • ... The pjth 'of Mr. Forbes's defence °/ :t W?"lP^pUce7of delegating; legislative^ wrsSto^Jbe^Goverr^^ hp ex«M-cis^;;by^ Orders/in Covincil was, confainedjin'ithe iofliow|hg>;sentences: , P.elegiitedirlegiflation,: in Jspijt©l pi the populjirlb^liei ofX the;, moment,., is no ■"'.', From; the time "lyhen: Parliam^ivfc^ry-enaotmeiits' first'became paiSfdf-.t.he' law-of 'EngraVd # has been' neoessary^fop Parliament . to delegate certaitt'powers' of.legislation, and-it is ine^itaWe -thit they increasing complexity dfrjittodernQife-and goverament will necessitate, aw evetincreasing delega-i^°3i..'.-.»£"•■;fciinnot[hei too emphatic in statjng" that neither the 'present nor any conceivable fixture New Zealand Parliament could possibly refrain from delegating certain, of its powers of legislations *,<- ■' ' ' .... ' Like tKe. lacly in' the play, the Prime Minister^doth protest too much. That climax of valiant emphasis on the proposition that "neither the present nor any conceivable future New.Zealand Parliament could possibly refrain from th|s habit pf delegation' is tut, tliei cheap triumph which a disputant, unable to face his'antagonist, is!able.to win over the straw man he has'him'self set up.' Nobody has suggested that, the habit can be- completely abolished; or that it Is desirable', to make the' attempt. What Miv ■ Foibes , calls - "the. increasing complexity ofiirioderh life".renders it inevitable, that a prompter and more flexiblepoWer}than an.amending Bill! should be'retained for dealings with the subsidiary and ever-chatiging-details that ate constantly demanding treatment. But while' this work' may be. reasonably left .as heretofore,, to the ;jxecutiye, : ..the: layingdoA?in: of,principles and the determinatio'n'of tne substantive features of '£l'Jmeasure.are. the proper, work of P^rlianifent, and it is against the growing^ tendenjcy bf. the Goverhment to.trespass upori this province—a tendency vby no means confined to the 'present- Government, or to the Government^ of this country—that the-crJLtiGism:of which the Prime Minister^ comp-lains is v directed. It is;idle ? therefore, for him to argue as/though anybody- supposed that all the supplementary and incidental detail work which is usually entrusted to dep.atthiental experts could be crowded into ah Act of Parlia-' mehi.''''K: ' /■•' ■The '. encroachment of Ministers {. u^on the legislative functions" of Parliament is but ah incident of the general .increase of the powers which • they exercise over .Parliament ' through the.1' party, machine. Though the tendency has been in operation for many years, it inevitably received a. great stimulus from llie necessities of the War. The Roman dictatorship had its origin in the need for concentrating power in

a pair of strong hands "lest the Republic should suffer some harm" in a time of emergency. It may safely be said that during the World War every belligerent democracy was compelled, in obedience to the same logic, to entrust its Government with arbitrary and despotic powers which nobody would have dared to propose in time of peace. "War," as Lord Justice Scruttoa said in 1918, "cannot be carried on according to the principles of Magna Carta." Within a week after the declaration of war the New Zealand Parliament empowered the Government by Order in Council to fix the maximum prices of goods and to vary them from time to time. In 1915 it passed a Cost of Living Act and established a Board of Trade for thp purposes of. its administration. In 1919 it passed a so-called Board of Trade Acf which, comically enough, transferred the functions of the Board of Trade to the Minister of Industries and Commerce, and by section 26 empowered the Government on his recommendation to provide, by Order in 'Council,- a number of specified purposes, with this general and comprehensive addition:—; the regulation and control of industries in_ any othor manner whatever which is. deemed necessary, for the maintenance; and prosperity of those industries arid the: economic welfare of New Zealand.

The Board of Trade Act, 1919, passed almost exactly a year after the Armistice, is a glaring example of the continuance of the war mentality into the time of peace, and whatever may be the opinion on the limits ,of the power conferred by the clause we have quoted, it cannot alter the fact that a despotic system of legislation by Order in Council; which war conditions alone could justify, is still in operation after fourteen years of. peace. It was, as we have said, only its harmless and necessary pre-war operation that the Prime Minister defended. His generalities enabled him to ignore the specific cause "of the criticism to which he objected. A remark made by me recently in regard to' Orders in Council caused resolutions of protest to pour into my office, said Mr. Forbes.

That remark was that, if he could not get his Sales Tax Bill through the House in the form he desired, he would take power to enable the Government to legislate by Order in Council. That ■ threat did not savour of war mentality. It was the kind of mentality which enables Mussolini and Hifler to dispense with the bauble 'of Parliamentary government in time of peace, and Mr. Forbes was wise to refrain from justifying it. j- ;.' '