VIGOROUS PROTEST

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26628, 26 November 1947, Page 6

VIGOROUS PROTEST

DICTATORIAL POWERS SUPPLY REGULATIONS BILL PARLIAMENT BY-PASSED Parliamentary Reporter WELLINGTON, Nov. 25. All the elements of Communism, totalitarianism and dictatorship were to be found in the Supply Regulations Bill, stated the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, in a vigorous protest against its provisions in the House of Representatives to-night. The Bill was discussed at the second reading stage simultaneously with the Emergency Regulations Continuance Bill. Mr Holland said that under the Supply Regulations Bill a Minister could write regulations with the full force of law. The Bill by-passed Parliament and meant that the elected representatives of the people did not count. It would be bludgeoned through the House because the Government had the four Maori seats. The Bill was an attack on the liberties of the people. Necessity Defended 1

The Minister of Supply, Mr Nordmeyer, said that every clause in the Bill had been, in the law since 1989. There was an imperative need to continue the regulations regarding supplies, some of which were essential to the well-being and even the life of the community. .. „ . ... Moving the second reading of the Emergency Regulations Continuance Bill the Minister of Justice, Mr Mason, said the fact that only now were they repealing some of the 1914-18 war regulations showed that the day when firing ceased, or even when peace treaties were signed, was not the one when all the war regulations could be ended. The Bills would empower the continuance of such regulations as were helpful and useful to many people. The central clause was that which ended the power to make fresh regulations. Effective sections of the Emergency Regulations Act of 1?39 were repealed, and . those remaining were incidental sections which were interpretive and remained for the protection and interpretation of such other clauses as remained. Stranglehold on People Mr Holland said there would be little to complain’or if the Bills meant only what the Attorney-general said hut thev went a good deal further, xie would address himself Jo the Supply Regulations Bill, which looked innocuous enough with its nine clauses, but in fact it was the. most important and far-reaching Bill in the 12 years of Labour rule. It the Bill of the session. Had the Government become so blase .that it could put further strangleholds on the people and the country without noticing this. Mr Holland' said he hoped the weight of public opinion might influence the Government to change its mind and leave the people some freedom. The Ministry of Supply, which was set up under the Emergency Regulations, was to be continued. Clause 3 of the Supply Regulatmns Bill gave an idea of its. far-reaching powers. It empowered the making by Order-in-council of such regulations as appeared to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for maintaining, controlling and regulating supplies and services essential to the well-being of the community and for contributing to the equitable distribution of goods, in short, supplying throughout the world. This meant, said Mr Holland, that the Minister of Supply had the power, without reference to Parliament or the country, to control anything. It was a complete blank cheque. If it had to do with “ supplies or services ” the Minister could do as he liked. This was Communistic Socialism, < a levelling-down process. The Minister could take a farm without the right of appeal. Mr Holland added that this applied to any business, shop, factory, or even a man’s home. If seizure were consistent with the stated purposes of the Bill there would be no right of appeal. 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 this Bill. Once passed, there was no provision for appeal or compensation. The Bill authorised the taking possession of or control of any property or undertaking and the taking of any property. It authorised the searching and entry of any premises. Minister’s Defence

Mr Nordmeyer said that the Leader of the Opposition had read into the Bill something that was not there. The Leader of the Opposition had omitted to tell the House and the country that every one of the clauses to which he took exception had been in the law since 1939. Every one of the clauses was taken from the Emergency Regulations Act, which had been on the Statute Book since 1939, In Great Britain, in 1945, they had continued for five years the powers they had in war-time in order to do what the Government here was doing now, and actually there was authority to extend the power beyond 1950. In Canada and Australia, regulations' regarding supply similar to those in the Bill had been continued in those countries. There was an imperative need to continue regulations regarding supplies. 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 powers in the measure New Zealand could not share with the people in the United Kingdom the goods it had in abundance. Apart from the regulations, there would be no power for rationing to be continued. It was essential that commodities in short supply should be equitably distributed throughout the country.