SUPERFLUOUS LAW.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 91, 18 April 1929, Page 20

SUPERFLUOUS LAW.

BOARD OF TRADE ACT.

A PERIL TO PROGRESS.

The Board of Trade Act, whch remains on the Statute Book as on© of the Dominion's legacies from the war upheaval, is likely to he one of the first measures repealed by the new Parliament (says a communication from the 1928 Committee). The Reform Government made preparations for this step last year, but unfortunately a congestion of business towards the close of the session prevented these preparations being put into operation. It may be taken for granted that the United (Government will give the matter its early attention, but the provisions of the Act are so drastic and so far-reach-ing that the community scarcely can feel secure while they remain on the Statute Book in any shape or form. The Act is the successor to the Cost of Living Act, a purely war measure, and up to 10*23 it was hemmed around by various precautions which went some way towards conserving the common rights of the individual. Six years ago, however, the Government of the day determined to dispense with these desirable safeguards, and clothed the Minister of Industries and Commerce with autocratic authority, which enabled him to take charge of any business or industry he deemd to be in need of his attention.

State Interference. The amending Bill bringing about this change in the character and administration of the Board of Trade Act was submitted to the House of Representatives only 24 hours before the prorogation of Parliament, and passed its second and third readings and was finallyadopted in scarcely more than an hour. The Minister in charge of the bill stated quite frankly that the object he had in view was "to substitute an inexpensive Minister for an expensive board which would hold office for five years." The Minister got bis way without a single dissentient voice, and forthwith was clothed with authority to (1) prevent and suppress any method of competition. trading or business he thought unfair; (2) to prevent and suppress any monopoly or combination he considered prejudicial to any other industry; (3) to fix maximum or minimum prices or rates for any class of goods or services; (4) to prohibit, regulate or control prices or rates for goods and services; and (5) to regulate and control industries in any other manner he considered necessary. These astounding provisions remain on the Statute Book to-day as the law of the land, more than ten years after the conclusion of the war which made them, just possibly, excusable. Relief in Sight. It has to be said to the credit of Mr. W. Downie Stewart and Mr. A. D. MeLeod, successive holders of the portfolio of Industries and Commerce, that they made no improper use of the far-reach-ing authority with which they were entrusted. Their fault—which seems to have been the fault, more or less, of every member of the House of Representatives and of every member of the Legislative Council at that time—lay in allowing such a measure to pass into law without making any adequate examination of its provisions and its potentialities. Ministers less discreet than Mr. Stewart and Mr. McLeod appear to have been- might have raised a perfect ferment of dissatisfaction throughout the country by attempting to enforce the authority with which they were endowed. It has been left to Sir Joseph Ward and his colleagues in the United Ministry to give effect to the good intentions of their predecessors in office, and there is not likely to be any unnecessary delay in the discharge of this obligation. It should be remembered, however, that there is a considerable element of superficial thinkers in the country who confuse "State control" with true democracy, and so hamper the wheels of progress.