Govt expected to counter Court decision

Press, 15 December 1982, Page 1

Govt expected to counter Court decision

PA Wellington Special legislation is expected to be introduced in Parliament this week to overcome yesterday’s Court of Appeal judgment on the wage freeze.

The Court ruled that the freeze should not apply to members of the Combined State Unions, about 187,000 people. The Prime Minister. Mr Muldoon who introduced the freeze on June 22, would not comment to journalists yesterday but he said on television last evening that the judgment had been discussed by Ministers and officials. “We will recommend to the Cabinet that Parliament be -asked to rectify this thing,” he said. The Parliamentary year is expected to end on Friday. Mr Muldoon could not be reached immediately for further comment but the Minister of Labour, Mr Bolger, said the situation created by the Court was untenable. The Court had already upheld the validity of the freeze regulations as they applied to the private sector. A lt is not credible now to have a situation remain where private sector wages are frozen and public sector wages are not,” he said. Mr Bolger, Mr Muldoon, the Minister of State Services, Mr Thomson, and the Attorney-General, Mr McLay, met yesterday afternoon to consider the Court’s judgment and the NZPA believes the legislation will be introduced in parliament today. The Government may choose to pass it through all its stages in one sitting but it is thought more likely that it will be simply introduced today and passed finally tomorrow. Mr Thomson, who is also Leader of the House, told NZPA that he expected the

session would still be wound up on Friday as planned. He would not comment on the Court's ruling. Mr Muldoon later refused to add to his television comment that the Cabinet would be asked to agree to amend the Economic Stabilisation Act under which the freeze regulations were promulgated. Asked if he was surprised by the ruling he told NZPA: “Surprised ... I am never surprised at anything in this place.” A four-to-one majority judgment delivered by the president of the Court. Sir Owen Woodhouse, ruled the 1977 State Services Conditions of Employment Act as outside the Freeze Regulations. In a ruling which gave heavy emphasis to constitutional issues, the four judges said the Government had not had the authority of Parliament to suspend the working of a large part of the five-year-old act. “Accordingly it is necessary to declare the regulations invalid to the extent that they purport to interfere with the State Services Conditions of Employment Act. 1977, and related provisions in the Post Office legislation.” the ruling said. The Court, which earlier this year rejected a similar application for the general work-force lodged by the Drivers’ Federation, said it recognised that its ruling could create “administrative or other problems.” “But whatever the problems there can be only one answer from the Court as to whether or not the regula-

tions are valid in relation to the State services. “As a matter of law no middle course is open. The plain fact is that if the necessary Parliamentary authority for delegated legislation has been exceeded, then Parliament alone can take any steps that may seem appropriate in order to overcome the invalidity."

No immediate comment was available from the Prime Minister. Mr Muldoon, or other senior Ministers on whether special legislation would be introduced before the end of the session. The majority 15-page ruling emphasised section six of the 1977 act which said that the act should override other legislation, with State conditions of employment to be prescribed “by determination under this act and not otherwise.” In a minority opinion, Mr Justice McMullin said he did not see the section as “elevating the code ... to a point where it should be treated as ousting the operation of the Economic Stabilisation Act, 1948. and any regulations made pursuant to it . . .” The Court majority said they were satisfied the legislative purpose of the State Services Act was "to establish a code which would be both comprehensive and exclusive for the purpose of fixing conditions of employment of those within the State services” and that section six was itself “deliberately designed to underscore that purpose and its intended achievement." Mr Justice Woodhouse said it was clear that the freeze regulations restricted pay

and allowances for State servants and the Court had found three “significant areas of conflict" between the State Services Act and the freeze regulations. “It is an important constitutional principle that subordinate legislation cannot repeal or interfere with the operation of a statute except with the antecedent authority of Parliament itself.” the Court said. It was a constitutional principle because it made Parliament itself the main authority in the whole legislative field. It followed that the courts “will not accept that Parliament has intended its own enactments to be subject to suspension, amendment, or repeal by any kind of subordinate legislation at the hand of the Executive unless direct and unambigious authority has been expressly spelled out to that effect" or was clearly intended in the parent law. The majority ruling said the “issue must involve a weighing of alternatives." “Weighing them, we think that our constitutional duty is to resolve any conflict or doubt that arises in favour of the supremacy of Parliament. "... special legislation as strongly worded as the 1977 act is not to be overridden by mere regulations unless the authority to override it has been squarely and undoubtedly given by Parliament. “Any other resolution would be too dangerous. a constitutional precedent.”

The Court said that in a case “as balanced as this one is" it was "vital that the Court should come down firmly on the side of that basic principle of democracy." Mr Justice McMullin in his minority judgment said he fully recognised “the force of the constitutional point" raised by the majority ruling.

The chairman of the Combined State Unions. Mr D. H. Thorp, said last evening that he was delighted bv the outcome of the Court of Appeal hearing.

He said that the C.S.U. found the regulations freezing wage rates to be repugnant. especially when it was recognised that the freezing of other incomes was totally ineffective.

Nevertheless. Mr Thorp said, "State employees would nQt seek to exploit the law as it now stood to give State workers any preferential treatment over other workers. However, where State employers, acting as agent for the Government, had steadfastly refused to correct serious anomalies in some pay scales, the law 7 would be pursued to seek justice for our members."