MINISTER’S RULINGS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 202, 23 May 1936, Page 10

MINISTER’S RULINGS

Transport Licensing Control ONE GROUND ONLY FOR CHALLENGE The clause in Hie Transport Licensing Amendment Bill which provides that no decision of the Minister of Transport shall be challenged except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was strongly criticised by members of the Opposition during the committee stage of the Bill in [he House of Representatives yesterday. “I do not think that even an infernal machine w.ould be able to knock the Minister out of the position he will occupy as the result of this clause,’ said the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipara). "No one is to be allowed to question his decisions. Barbed wire, gas or raining lire will not be able to upset him." The Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. Al. J. Savage: He has not a monopoly of tbe gas, anyway. “Tills clause has been framed by a Government which talks about freedom and independence,” .Mr. Coates continued. “Is there any way in which we will be able to get at this man? I suppose it will really need an Act of Parliament.”

The Leader of the Opposition, Rt Hon. G. AV. Forbes, said tbe clause was not in accordance with the protestations of the Minister when in opposition. If the -Minister wt're going to be fair in his decisions he did not require the protection given him in tho Bill.

“The Minister has said he will give unbiased and just decisions, and if that is so why is he cloaking himself in this coat of armour?” asked Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition, Riccarton). The Minister of Transport, Hon. R. Semple, said it was incorrect for the Leader of the Opposition to say that the clause had been inserted in the Bill because he (tbe Alinister) was afraid he might not be able to give a decision or verdict that would meet with tlie general approval of the people directly concerned. “The clause as it reads might sound like a little bit of despotism,” said the Alinister. Air. W. J. Polson (Opposition, Stratford) : It certainly does. “There is a reason for that,” added the Alinister. “We have to have finality and not endless litigation. We do not want to leave a feed for the legal profession. It does not need much of a loophole for the lawyer to get in. The result is that litigation takes place, and industry and transport generally is hung up.” Mr. Semple said decisions would be given on the basis of evidence submitted. If be were not satisfied with the. evidence he would appoint examiners to search for more facts. Men with an analytical mind capable of sifting evidence would be appointed for that purpose. After these facts had been marshalled he would then be in a position to give a decision. “There may be some minor loopholes the lawyers can get through and hang up the decisions of the Minister,” said Mr. Semple. “Litigation has developed over technical things that do not matter a scrap of the finger. I don’t blame the legal profession—it is their job to find loopholes. They advise their clients they have a good case and away she goes. They can bail you up on technical points, and this clause is to set over that.” Mr. Polson said the provision that proceedings before the Minister could not be Held bad for want of form simply meant that rafferty rules would apply. No civilised country possessed such extraordinary legislation. It was no use tlie Minister talking about technical loopholes: it was a question of justice. Mr. AV. J. Bromlfoot (Opposition. AVaitomo) contended that there should be tlie right to review Hie Minister’s decisions.

The Opposition called for a division on tlie clause, which was retained by 51 votes to 16.