IS IT DEMOCRATIC?

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 139, 8 March 1941, Page 10

IS IT DEMOCRATIC?

There was one statement in the review of recent land legislation made by the Minister of Lands early in the week that must be challenged, because it might create a wholly erroneous impression. Mr. Langstone said that if an owner whose land had been taken had “any real ground for objection” it would receive “careful and sympathetic consideration.” The fact that the owner would prefer legal protection rather than ministerial consideration need not be stressed again. It could hardly be questioned. But the Minister went on to say: “This is a democratic country and any aggrieved citizen has every opportunity for ventilating his complaints.” The statement, unfortunately, is not in accordance with the ,facts.

The present Government has placed on the Statute Books several Acts that effectively prevent interested parties from “ventilating their complaints” in any official manner, or of taking their claims before a court of law. The Transport Licensing Amendment Act affords an illustration. It reads:

Proceedings before the Minister under the principal Act (including this Act) shall not be held bad for want of form. No appeal shall lie from any appointment, decision, or determination made by’ the Minister; and, except upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction, no proceeding, appointment, decision or determination shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any Court.”

As if that were not sufficiently drastic, in the prevention of recourse to the Courts of Justice, the Act may debar, not merely the ventilation of any complaint, but also the presentation of evidence. One sub-clause states, in connexion with licensing appeals: “The Minister, in determining any appeal, shall not be bound to hear any person or to take any evidence or to receive any representations from any person.” It would be interesting to know how the Minister of Lands squares that with his ’statement that, this being a democratic country, any aggrieved citizen has every opportunity of ventilating his complaints.

There are similar drastic powers in legislation dealing with the guaranteed price for dairy produce, and if the entire industry wanted to have not simply its complaints, but what it considers its just claims heard, it could not get access to a Court. The Act prevents it. The decision of the Minister—even if it over-rides the unanimous recommendations of a committee that included his own nominees—cannot be challenged on any grounds whatsoever. Can Mr. Langstone see in that course “every opportunity of ventilating” complaints? Similar drastic powers were inserted in the Industrial Efficiency Act, with the added proviso that the Minister can impose a fine if he thinks any appeal is frivolous. On the legislative record of the past few yeais, the very last claim that any member of the Government could make, is that “any aggrieved citizen has every opportunity of ventilating his complaints.” In several important matters he'is absolutely prevented from ventilating them in the only place where effective revision is possible, and that is in the Courts of the land.