Supply Regulations Bill Criticised By Opposition

Lake County Mail, Issue 28, 3 December 1947, Page 12

Supply Regulations Bill Criticised By Opposition

The claim that nil the elements of totalitarianism and dictatorship were to bo found in the Supply Regulations Bill was made by Opposition speakers when tke measure was debated with Bmergemey Regulations Continuance Bill in the House of Representatives this week. The Opposition contended that under the Supply Regulations Bill a Minister could yrrite regulations with full force of law and they made the further point that the Bill by-passed Parliament. The Bill was described as a measure whieh gave tke Government a blank cheque. The Government could take over banks, insurance companies, mines, transport, hotels, shipping companies, freezing works, in fact anything without further power than would be contained in the Bill once it was passed, and there was no provision for appeal or compensation. The Govermnent view, as put forward by ths Minister of Supply (Mr Nordmeyer) was that all the clauses to whieh the Opposition took exception had bsen in the law since 1939 (Opposition members: "War-tiihe emergency.”). In New Zealand as elsewhere, there was a shortage of certain supplies, some of which were essential for the well being of the community. Unless there were the required powers New Zealand could not share with the people in the United Kingdoin the goods it had in abundance It was essential that commodities and supplies should be equally distributed. The Prime Minister (Mr Praser) deseribed as twaddle w talk of dictatorship. If it was necessary to take steps towards public ownership in any direction that would be openly done and carried ont through the House. Night Bitting The Opposition carried on the debate, in protest throughout the whole of Tuesday night, giving the House an all-night sitting, and after an adjournment from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Wednesday, the discussion was continued in the committee stages. Later in the day Mr Nordmeyer announced that both parties in the House had held discussions and it had been decided to refer both Bills to a recess committee whieh would determine whieh regulations should be retained and whieh should be dropped. It had also been agreed that the expiry date of the measures should be changed from December 1950 to December 1948. Both Bills were then passed. The exemption of premises normally used for holiday purposes, such as seaside baches, from the provision of the Fair Bents Amendment Bill, dealing with the compulsory letting of empty houses was one of the Government amendments included in the Bill, whieh was passed after some discussion.