ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL.

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 328, 13 April 1928, Page 10

ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL.

LEGAL CONFERENCE DISAPPROVAL ' BUREAUCRACY OVERDO^ (Special to TBS SUB) CHRISTCHURCH. Thurs^v At the Dominion le a *l confer, a paper was read by M r » Wri s ht. of Christchurch, on -tL Present Trend of L«gi,|,tion - wh.ch he emphasised the d*n~ll of leg,slat.on by Orders-in-Cou” Mr. Wright showed that the pnt : ciples of law. as laid down by He wart. Chief Justice of England. volving the absence of arbitrary j on the part of the Government aod i equality before the law, were euda*. j gered when Parliament delegated ft, j powers to State departments 3*4 Mr. F. B. Adams, of Dunedia. “That this conference express ... strong disuppioval of the frx>«£ practice of legislating by regulation* l^ ! I vf and ais° of tendency 01 1 e.-ent legislation to er.trnto officials wide powers not subje r » connol bj the tom ts, and in parti the power of deciding questions a:jZ7 ing private rights without allowingVC* constitutional right of appeal to thj Mr. A. Fair. K.C.. agreed with the general tenor of uWright’s paper but denied that n* criticisms applied to New Zealand. The main complaint of the article in English law journals and by Hewart. said Mr. Fair, was that Orders-in-Council usurped the fa*, tions of the law courts. Apparan - Orders-in-Council of that nature ha? been issued in England, but not oih of that kind had been issued in Ner Zealand. He spoke of the past five «• six years. As to the references by aor' of the speakers to the powers of tr Commissioner of Taxes and of th~ Commissioner of Stamps, the they possessed, Mr. Fair asserted, wev not given by Order-in-Council; th* were powers especially conferred r Parliament. It was recognised by leading authorties on legislation that Parham*could not function unless a large por. tion of its legislative powers tns delegated. He thought the last sottence in Mr. Adams’s motion was to, sweeping. If the conference to it, it would be disapproving of southing that, as far a.s he was a warhad never happened. The motion, however, was agreed t, without dissenL Later the conference discussed tlJ'ury system with special reference t» the rules of December, 1924, the rights of litigants to trial by jur in certain civil cases. The foliowir. resolution was carried. That th conference approves the principle th* it is desirable to revert to the fonr rules as to trial by jury in cm actions.”