The Press THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1958. Legislating in The Dark

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28700, 25 September 1958, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1958. Legislating in The Dark

The Opposition took a most unusual course when it moved a blanket amendment on the third reading of the Transport Amendment Bill, proposing that the bill should be deferred for a year. The circumstances fully justified this action. It is a bill that should not have been passed in its present form. It was introduced and read a first time on August 5, but not until the second reading debate on September 11 did the glaring fault in the bill become apparent. This was that the Government had no clear idea of what it was legislating for. The Minister of Transport (Mr Mathison) said that, while his department had worked out a practicable system, he himself “ was not quite “ sure ” that it had been perfected. The Minister’s doubts were expressed further when he said that the bill sought authority to. bring in a scheme for colouring petrol on January 1, “if the proposals were ad- “ ministratively possible ”. During the committee stages of the bill on September 21, the Minister said he had “ yet to be “ convinced that any scheme “ was practical or economical ”. All he had to do, Mr Mathison said, was to convince himself that “the scheme we have is “ economically desirable ”. But even on an economic basis it is by no means sure that an “ eco- “ nominally desirable ” scheme can b 4 evolved, simply because more cost might be involved than the thing is worth.

The Opposition very properly protested at legislation which would give the Government extensive penal powers against citizens, without defining clearly how citizens would put themselves in peril. This, the Opposition felt, should not be left to regulation. The Opposition objected to legislating for. a system which it believed was impracticable and which the Government had made not the effort to show would be practicable. (It must be remembered that the Opposition was not speaking in the dark, because as the Government only a few months ago it had considered schemes for colouring rebate petrol—which it (thought to be desirable—but had been forced to reject them as impracticable.) In the Government’s bill, the Opposition saw reason to object, especially, to a provision which would give inspectors authority to remove parts of the 'fuel

system of a vehicle where they suspected offences. This is a provision which might well bring officers and the department into conflict with other branches of the law. A host of circumstances could be visualised in which an immobilised vehicle might be involved in hazard or accident to road users other than the owner of the vehicle, or loss or damage might be caused to the owner. Other anomalies and faults in he bill were pointed out; for instance that a penal liability would rest upon a person who falsely certified motor spirit had been coloured, but no penalty was provided for persons who received the spirits and who might indeed have connived in the offence. Had there been more time for consideration, the Minister of Transport would almost certainly have been ready to give consideration to criticism and suggestions by the Opposition. But in a quite unwarranted end-of-the-session rush the Minister wanted to have his legislation passed because Parliament might not meet again for eight or nine months. This might be an expedient convenient to the Minister and his department, but it is very far indeed from being a reason for expecting Parliament to pass legislation the implications of which are not clear even to the ■ Minister in charge of the bill. Indeed, to ask Parliament to legislate when no-one is ready or able to explain legislation is a travesty of Parliamentary procedure. In view of the complications that have been introduced into the petrolcolouring question (by way of differentiations and exemptions especially) it is hard to think that a practicable, fool-proof, just, system can be evolved. Looking at the position that has developed, it seems that the best thing to do would be to

take the whole idea apart, and make a fresh beginning—perhaps by arranging relief for farm-used petrol iij some quite different way.. If it is admitted that something must be done to protect the revenue against abuses of the rebate system, it is not enough to contend that anything that might be done would be better than doing

nothing. This, unhappily, seems to be the Government’s attitude and' its justification for what it is doing. The attitude is unsound, and justification non-existent.