IN THE KING’S NAME

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 713, 12 July 1929, Page 11

IN THE KING’S NAME

ADDRESS TO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE STATE TRADING CRITICISED When a customer of a State oyster depot engages in a dispute with the Marine Department, it is not proper that his Majesty the King should be named as the defendant. Similarly, it is not consistent with the honour and dignity of the Sovereign that he should b© associated with lengthy disputes over civil claims, taken from court to court in the King’s name. This was the contention of All*. R. L. Ziman, solicitor, in an address at the Auckland Chamber of Commerce luncheon yesterday. Contending that State trading should be carried out by specially-created corporations, All*. Ziman said that if his Majesty’s name was used with State trading ventures, it followed that he must be made a party to litigation. The late Mr. Justice Alpers had commented upon the undesirability of this. The primary functions of the Crown were war and the administration of justice; the secondary functions were j mainly legislation, taxation, social service and State trading. One of the prerogative rights at present enjoyed by Government trading departments in New Zealand was that no statute affected the rights of the King unless it was expressly stated that his Alajesty was bound thereby. By this means the Crown was exempt from much industrial legislation. The speaker referred to special privileges conferred by statute on the Crown as a plaintiff in the courts, and to the even greater advantages it enjoyed as a defendant. When the Crown was plaintiff, no counter-claim might be lodged for hearing in the ordinary way, but only by the sepai*ate and in many ways unsatisfactory procedure known as a “petition of right.” In respect of assault, false imprisonment. malicious prosecution, wrongful judicial process, libel or slander, no claim lay against the Crown. These exemptions were clearly of great commercial importance. By way of contrast, Air. Ziman gave an account of the Imperial Government’s policy with regard to its trading ventures. These were now carried on mainly by special corporations, such as the British Dyestuffs Corporation and a more recent institution for providing finance for farms. Other instances of State trading without the prerogative of the Crown were the Canadian Alerchant Marine, Limited, which had been sued in New Zealand as an ordinary defendant, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the classical example of the New Zealand Government’s interest in the Bank of New Zealand.