The Press THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1945. Statutes Amendment

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24742, 6 December 1945, Page 4

The Press THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1945. Statutes Amendment

The objection expressed by the Leader of the Opposition w*hen the Statutes Amendment Bill was introduced, its 95 clauses amending 49 acts, was a sound one, against which the Minister of Supply, the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, would have argued only one defence, if he had been discreet. That is, of course, that the Government has done in this bill what all governments do, and cannot well avoid doing: it has used an omnibus measure to dispose of a great deal of miscellaneous business, most of it non-contentious, with the least strain on the forms and time of the House. But Mr Sullivan was not content to say this, which is true and fair as far a? it goes, and to leave what was indefensible undefended. What is indefensible, of course, is the abuse, of the expedient, as it is abused when contentious or at least problematic clauses are faggoted with the others, though no real reason appears why earlier, separate opportunity to consider them could not have been provided or why they should be rushed now. As often as such abuses occur, protest should be raised. Mr Sullivan tried to make light of Mr Holland's, as one in which he merely followed the " precedent " of years; it would be better to acknowledge the substance of a protest which the Government provokes by coolly following a bad precedent from year to year. But Mr Sullivan was even less reasonable when he retorted to Mr Holland that, if "all the '• clauses " were turned into separate amending bills, Heaven alone knew how long the .House would take to finish its work. No such calculation was required, whether of Heaven or of the Government, by Mr Holland's criticism. "Some "of the clauses, he suggested, required separate bills; and those he specified were few. One of these examples is enough to prove his case, and to prove the abuse of the washing-up device. This is provided by the clauses which, in addition to rectifying a real anomaly in local legislation, give the Valuer-General wide powers to recover rates from the Mangonui County, which is in long and obstinate default. The county is not named; the powers are general; and they are very drastic. But, as the Prime Minister said, it is " solely to "meet the exceptional conditions•' in this county, that the clause was drafted. This is the objection, not the justification. The problem is not new. There is no more "reason to deal with it to-day than yesterday or to-morrow; and the attempt to deal with it by creating these extraordinary powers is a disturbing one. At a time when local government reform is, or ought to be, very near, it is an attempt that the House should have found intolerable.