Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 9 June 1932, Page 4

A defence of orders-in-counci] was recently made, by Hon. G. Forbes, in the course of a reply to a criticism, in which he stated in the first place it was pointed out that with the increasing mass of legislation which the Legislatures of all civilised countries are now being ctilled upon to consider, it is impossible within reasonable limits for Parliament to deal other than with principles and the more important provisions, delegating the power of modify, 'extend, or apply their operation in changing circumstance*, or in matters of comparatively minor import. This practice has proved almost universally to ho the most satisfactory method of legislating. By this moan-' the Legislature has before it the main issue involved and the means by which its objects are to bo achieved. It i« able to appreciate them better and considered tbei.i more fully. Tf a mass of detail were iudir’ed in tno Acts, the main issues would probably receive less consideration, and the process of baTodatmn would become much more protracted and •cumbersome. Secondly, «tlie system of p ovidi-ng for matters of detail by means of regulations facilitates administration generally as every administrative change is more or less in the nature of an experiment and the full effects are of lon not obvious until the Act hag been in operation lotsome time; com-queiitly it is neces-

sary for the legislative machinery to be adjustable. Thirdly, under the

efficient safe-guards at present obtaining there ia little likelihood of the system being abused. The persons whose interests are. affected have every opportunity of making representations to the Minister in charge of the department concerned, and defects can bo remedied without the necessity of an amending Act. Furtherefore, all important Orders-in-Council and regulations are laid on the table of the House and are thus subject to scrutiny and review by Parliament.