THE FINAL DECISION.

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20280, 24 August 1937, Page 6

THE FINAL DECISION.

The Minister of Internal Affairs has advanced a comprehensive plan for reducing the number of counties in North Canterbury from twenty-one to four. Mr Parry said that there was no necessity for any hurry about a decision and “no need for excitement.” Then he touched on a matter of basic importance. He said that the counties might prepare an alternative plan, which he would willingly consider, “and in any case the final decision rested with the tribunal set up under the new legislation, on which they were represented.” There should be no room for any doubt on this matter. The tribunal it is proposed to appoint will include a Judge of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the local bodies concerned, but it has not been made clear that the decision of this body would be final; that is, binding on both the local bodies and the Government. That course has not been followed by the Government in other matters. The Minister of Transport has made himself the final court of appeal in connection with that important industry. He said he would be protected against a court decision. The Minister of Industries and Commerce is the final court in connection with the operations of the Bureau of Industries and its decisions. There is no legal access to the courts of the land with regard to guaranteed prices. It was assumed that a similar course would be followed with regard to the amalgamation of local bodies. When Mr Parry addressed the Institute of Public Administration in Wellington some time ago he briefly reviewed the proposed procedure in this connection. “The local bodies,” he said, “will have the opportunity to state their case before the commission who will impartially examine all propositions put to it, and report to me their conclusions.” That certainly could not be interpreted to mean that the findings of the commission would be final. The duty obviously was simply to report to the Minister, and there is a marked difference between the report of a commission and a final decision.

The position is really becoming rather involved. The Minister of Public Works stated at Gisborne that “neither the Cabinet nor Mr Parry would force the scheme on any local body.” That was the position last May, yet since then the country has had the Minister of Internal Affairs outlining a plan for a commission that would report to him, and now a commission whose decisions would be final. These matters will have to be dealt with fully when the legislation comes before Parliament. There has been no other indication that the members of the Ministry have decided to depart from the policy of centralising power in their own hands—a development that has been proceeding ever since they took office —and there is no reason why, -even if they should decide that the decisions of the tribunal they propose to create should be binding on the Government, that any party should not have access to a court of law. The principle of freedom of access to the courts of the land is basic, and should not be denied to anybody.