The Hawera Star. SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1933. IMPORTANT APPEAL CASE.

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 17 June 1933, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

SATURDAY, JUNE 17, 1933. IMPORTANT APPEAL CASE.

Delivered every evening by 5 o’clock in ’Hawera, Manaia. Kaupokonui, Otakeho, Oeo, Pihama., Opunake, Normanby. Okaiawa. Eltham, Ngaere, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuna. Te Kiri, Mahoe Lowgarth, Ma.nutahi, Kakaramea, Alton. Hurleyville, Patea. Whenuakura, Waverley, Mokoia, Wtaakamara, Ohangai. Jleremere, Fraser Road and Araeata.

The judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on in connection with a theatre proprietor’s appeal against the refusal of the chief inspector under the Cinematograph Films Act to issue, a license in respect of a picture theatre, is of outstanding importance to the business community and to the public generally. Some months ago, it will be remembered, the astounding announcement was made that the Minister of Industries and Commerce- had assumed power, by a new regulation under the Board of Trade Act, to refuse at his own discretion applications for permits to build theatres. This action came as a bombshell to the film industry, and' it also aroused resentment in other quarters. There has been for years a desire on the part of the business community to see the repeal of the powers assumed by the Government under the Board of Trade Act during the war. The fact that these powers are mat exercised to the full do not make them acceptable; .so long as the facilities exist for the Government to interfere with private business there will always exist a sense of insecurity and. a feeling of irritation. The invocation of the Act by the present Minister in order to .place restrictions on the picture-theatre industry displeased many people who, while not personally interested in .theatre investments, were vitally interested in the preservation of liberty for private enterprise. The explanation given, by the Minister for his act was far from satisfactory. He claimed that the power to. prohibit the building of. a new picture theatre would be exercised only in such cases in which lie was satisfied that the community was already well 1 catered for and the opening of another theatre was likely to result in losses to. the theatres already established. While established theatre businesses may be very grateful for the Minister’s paternal interest in their welfare, it does not follow .that t'he public similarly regards his action. Unemployed tradesmen who see in new theatres a stimulus to employment do not concern themselves with speculation's about the financial prospects of the investors in such enterprises and they find it difficult to see why the Minister should interfere in that connection, or on behalf of similar enterprises which may be .threatened > with competition. It may be true that in some towns there are too many theatres and that competition for the patronage of the public has become uneconomic, but that, after all, is purely a matter for the judgment of investors—or should be. The principle of interference in this connection is thoroughly bad in a country which is not yet Sovietised. If theatres are to be protected from competition by a paternal why should not the principle be extended .to cover all other existing enterprises? The comments made on this regulation by the learned judges of the Appeal Count, during the hearing of -the case upon which they have now unanimously delivered judgment against the inspector (and that means against the Minister) should convince Cabinet that in this particular, if in no other, the Government has abused its authority to make laws by Order-iu-’Cou.neil.