SUPPLY REGULATIONS BILL

Opotiki News, Volume X, Issue 1052, 5 December 1947, Page 3

SUPPLY REGULATIONS BILL

OPPOSITION CHARGES GOVERNMENT REPLY EXPIRY DATE CHANGED The claim that all the elements c.f totalitarianism and dictatorship were to'be found in the Supply Regulations Bill was made by the Opposition speakers when the measure was debated with the Emergency Regulations Continuance Bill iff the House of Representatives last week.

The Opposition contended that under the Supply Regulations Bill a Minister could write regulations with full force of law and they made the further point that the Bill bypassed Parliament. The Bill was described as a measure which gave the 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 Government view, as put forward by the Minister of Supply (Mr. Xordmeycr) was that all the clauses to which the Opposition took exception had been in the law since 1039 (Opposition members: “Wartime emergency”). In New Zealand, as elsewhere, there was a shortage of certain supplies, some cf which were essential for the wellbeing of the community. Unless there were the required powers New Zealand could not share with the people in the United Kingdom the goods it had in abundance. It was essential that commodities and supplies should be equally distributed.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) described as “twaddle” talk of dictatorship. if it was necessary to take steps towards public ownership in any direction that would bo openly done and carried out through the House.

The Opposition carried on the debate, in protest, throughout the whole of Tuesday night, giving the House an all-night silting, and after an adjourment 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 which would determine which regulations should be retained and which should be dropped. It had also been agreed that the expiry l date of the measures’ should be changed from December 1950 to December 1948. Both Bills were then passed.