GAPS IN THE LAW

Hokitika Guardian, 16 November 1932, Page 8

GAPS IN THE LAW

SHADOWY LEGISLATORS

ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL,

Outweighing in importance many ineatures that lia/e preceded it in Parliament, the Oders-in-Couneil Confirmation Bill, introduced by Mr C. Carr (Tirnaru) fully deserves to be sponsored by the Government itself (says a statement by the Associated Chambers of Commerce). ■The Bill embodies something of the principle that the affairs ' 'of,, t..e country that are considered •to ‘t-equire Ipgjulating should be regulated by the .‘.ejk'bted representatives of the people, wjh|> are sent to Parliament for that purpose,' and not by shadowy bureaucrats sitting in Government offices. Parliament should rightly assume responsibility for the large body of legistation that passes through the Gazette, and for which at present it takes no responsibility after giving the broad authority in the , empowering acts under which these regulations are made.

SKETCHY LEGISLATION,

The Bill, however, provides merely for the endorsement by Parliament of Orders-in-Council which vary' or modify the terms of any Act. Tin's is a step in the right direction, but the Bill could well go further and provide for the setting up by Parliament of standing committees which Would consider regulations before and after powers are' granted, and which would prevent the powers of Parliament being used by 'departments. This is the valuable recommendation made in the influential British Committee on Ministers’ Powers Report, presented ' this year, andi which applies with equal force to conditions, in' New Zealand.

To-day the rough sketch only of new. legislation is approved by Parliament — and thete are regular, instances each session of rushed and ill-considered legislation—-and the filling in of the ; gaps is left to Government officials.; By means cf regluationg issued by Oirders-in-Cpuncil in the Gazette each week, far-reaching legislation is. promulgated, until, now there are three, volumes of Gazette notices for' every, volume, of Statutes.. .

■ Jn order to- discover the true extent of the legislative activity of ,the burr arcracy as. compared with that-of Pa. I :'.'lament, a search has been made, of the New Zealand Gazettes' for the la.- i three years. This reveals- that while, in 1929, Parliament passed-58 ' Acts,- the number of actual Orders-in-, Council issued .in the Gazette in that year Was 1042. This'-figure does-not. take into account additional eions, and other - orders issued “in ' pursuance and' ex-btbiAe of ’tile pd'Wers 1 and authorities conferred” by various Acts. In' 1930 Parliament passed 69Acts and the'departments issued 1236! Orders-iit-Council. In 1931 ’ 59 Acts were passed and 955 Orders-in-Council! were issued. As Professor J, H. Morgan pointed l out recently id London 'in regard to such regulations, “every act, however unconscious, of disobedience to them, and every omission, is in law regarded as a breach of the • Statute under which they are, or purport to be, issued, and carrier with it the same penalties.”

NET OF restrictions

' ; 'llere is 'a great’ massi of legislation which.' Parliament has ho hand in forming, but Which it shelves on to Gov-' eminent departments. The thsli of the departments is not always enviable,' and while they do their best, they; also have wide powers to' do their worst. The recent regulations issued by the Minister of Industries and: Commerce under the Board of Trade. Act, vesting in himself judicial powers' in the- granting of any further picture theatre licenses, is a glaring instance, of interferences with trade by Order-in-Council under the greatest weapon of all—the Board of Trade Act; Another recent instance I: provided by amending regulations relating to passenger services unde the transport Licensing Act. Appellants were informed in the Gazette® of April 28 that they would be liable for fees unless they withdrew their appeals by. May 1. A week-end intervened, and in the time allowed it was impossible ‘for all appellants to act who so wished, so that they were forced to conform to tile fees. These are only two of many cases 'that could be cited. The net of regulations, prohibitions and restrictions is drawing tighter around trade, ■industry and commerce, and the community generally, in no small degree through the exercise of powers by Order-in-Council. If Parliament is too: irresponsible to pass legislation in a proper and thorough manner, then at * "least its sense of responsibility and justice, should awaked tb‘the need to place an adequate check on* the powers of its servants.