BOARD OF TRADE ACT

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 16 June 1933, Page 9

BOARD OF TRADE ACT

VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS.

CHIEF JUSTICE’S COMMENT.

Describing the question involved as one of the greatest importance, the Chief Justice, iSir Michael Myers, in the course of a reserved "judgment delivered in the Court of Appeal at Wellington on Thursday, made some comments on the - validity of regulations made by' the Governor-General in !Council, under the provisions of the Board of Trade Act (reports the “Dominion”).

His Honour referred to a sub-para-graph of the Act, whereby it was provided that tihe Governor-General in Council might make by regulations under the Act such provisions as he deemed liecessary in the public interest ‘‘for the regulation and control of industries in any' other manner whatever which is deemed necessary for the maintenance and prosperity of those industries and the 'economic welfare of New Zealand.’’ “Industry” meant and included any trade, business, profession or undertaking whatsoever earned on for the purpose of profit. “If the sub-paragraph be given the literal construction for which the Solicitor-General contends, the consequences would be most far-reaching,’’ his Honour said. “It would be competent for the Governor-General in Council, for example, to make regulations to prevent any addition to the number of persons carrying’ ok' day business whatsoever and consequently the commencing of any r new "business', o" to prohibit the growing of wheat (now grown in various districts) or the manufacture of dairy products (now manufactured generally throughout the Dominion) except in one 11 or more particular district or districts.

PARLIAMENT AND EXECUTIVE.

“It is not of course -suggested that such regulations would in fact be made, but that is immaterial. The effect of the Solicitor-General’s argument seems to me to be that Parliament has surrendered to the Executive the whole control and governance of all the industries and all the trade and commerce of the Dominion subject only, to the power which it reserves under section 27, and the efficacy of which 1 I suggest is very doubtful, to pass a resolution disapproving of any particular regulation or regulations. “Even if such a- regulation were passed, the regulations thereby disapproved of might have been for some time in operation prior to Parliament having the opportunity. of passing the resolution, and have in the meantime done incalculable harm. Nevertheless, if I were satisfied from the language of the Statute that that was the intention of the Legislature, it would he my duty .so to hold, whatever the results, and to exress my view without comment or criticism beyond stating the results, or possible results, so that, •if they went beyond what was really intended, appropriate -steps could, if thought advisable, be taken to bring about any necessary amendments.

HIS HONOUR’S OPINION

“But in my opinion the language of the Act does not warrant the extremely wide construction for which the learned Solicitor-General contends. '

“It can hardly be supposed that Parliament has surrendered, or intended to surrender, to the executive its control over all the industries (including all trades and professions) of the country unless the language used is so plain as to admit of no other reasonable construction.

“In mv opinion there is another construction open, and a construction more reasonable than that contended for by the Solicitor-General, by the application of the ejusdem generis rule or canon of construction to the words ‘in any other manner whatever.” His Honour referred to four paragraphs of section 26 of the Board of Trade Act, which, he said, referred to various methods and matters of unfair trading—unfair to competitors or to a particular Industry, or prejudicial to public welfare. But the fifth paragraph, that one which provided for the regulation and control of industries “in any matter whatever,” was added to cover those cases which were not provided by the four other paragraphs. Hence the necessity for,'"arid the inclusion of, the sub-paragraph. Moreover, if the Legislature had intended to give the wide powers contended for by the Sol i citor-General, the only paragraph necessary would have been the one providing: for regulation “in anv matter whatever.” 111, I,,—— Ml II r~ ”l l 1 f > v m n/'