STILL ON STATUTE BOOK

Hokitika Guardian, 22 January 1929, Page 8

STILL ON STATUTE BOOK

—<«*»- MINISTERIAL .RULE. (TAXPAYER.) With the prospect of Parliament opening earlier than usual, and with the certainty of it being coni routed with an exceptionally large amount or work, it will not be inopportune ro remind the members of both Houses—the Prime Minister and his colleagues in particular—that the superfluous Hoard of Trade Act still lingers on. the Statute ( Hook. It will lie remembered that to- ( wards the cud ol lasi session the Hon. A. D. McLeod, then Minister of Indus- ( tries and Commerce, in discharge of a promise be bad given .made an attempt to get rid of the obnoxious features of ( the Act and to retain its desirable clauses in a separate measure. L lit or- . innately an unprecedented rush •ol work during the closing hours of the ( session compelled the government to postpone the introduction of the amending Dill to a more coincident season. n The proposals are in print. , however, and as they aie neithei lengthy nor contentious, there is no ( reason why they should not pass on to ( the Statute Hook as expeditiously as ( did the amending Dill bl 1923 which ( passed through all its stages in both , Houses in a little more than nil limn. , FROM. HOARD TO MINISTER, On that occasion Sir Francis Roll explained to the Legislative Council that the passage of the Hill was made urgent by the fact that the existing machinery had ceased to operate, while the Hon. AY. Downie Stewart, who was in charge of the measure in the other branch of the Legislature, declared that the main purpose of the proposed legislation was to substitute an inexrensive Minister for an expensive Board. The chief contributors to such discussion as the Dill induced were Sir Thomas -Mackenzie, in the Legislative Council, and .Air 0. AY. Forbes in the House of Representatives. ‘‘lf this Department is to be reconstructed, , Sil id Sir Thomas in one passage. “I hope it will he revivified. So far as I have been able to ascertain the Hoard and the Department have been dead letters. ... .1 am sure that if we had an up-to-date Department much that is being urged in connection with the meat pool, the dairy pool and otiiei pools might have been done without having recourse to these measures at all.” Mr Forbes, now holder of the portfolio of Lands and Agriculture in the new -Alinistry, confined hinisell mainly to an analysis of toe effect increased Customs duties would have upon the trade and commerce of the country; hut as he is now a Ministci of the Crown he need not be encumbered by any allusion to his utterance of five or six years ago. GOOD INTENTIONS. Though both Sir Thomas Mackenzie and Mr Forties denounced the sins of omission of the Hoard of trade neithei of them seems to have realised fully the magnitude of the authority conferred upon the .Minister by the legislation of 1923. Even now the facts will bear repetition The Minister of Industries and Commerce, representing the Government, was given absolute authority (1) to prevent and suppress any method of competition or trading or business lie thought unfair or prejudicial to the public welfare; (2) to suppress monopolies and combinations in relation to any industij j (31 to fix maximum or minimum prices or rates for any class of goods or services ; (4) to prohibit regulate or control such goods or services; and (5) to regulate and control industries in any other manner whutciei. The good intentions of the authors 01 this despotic legislation need not n doubted. The Minister and his colleagues simply had overlooked the fact that war provisions no longer were necessary and that a return to normal trading conditions was among the crying needs of the country. It has fallen lot of the new Government to -rive effect to the good intentions of the old It is to he hoped there will be no delay in the discharge of the obligations. •