ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 82, 16 October 1928, Page 11

ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL

ME. COATES EXPLAINS THE PRACTICE DEFENDED The Dominion Conference of the Fanners' Union recently protested against the practice of the Government , putting through important legislation by Order-in-Couneil, claiming that the practice did not give opportunity for the matter to receive the consideration of the members of the House of Representatives. In a reply received by the Farmers' Union executive to-day, tho Prime Minister (the Bight Hon. j. G. Coates) stated that the practice or1 incorporating in statutes only a statement of the main principles of legislation and the most important provisions and delegating power to modify, extend, or apply their operation in changing circumstances or on minor matters was now almost universally accepted as tho most satisfactory method of legislation. The benefits were obvious. The Legislature had before it the main issues involved in the legislation and the means by which its object was to be achieved. It was ablo to appreciate them bettor,.and consider them more fully. If the Act included a mass of detail, providing the machinery for giving effect to those principles and attempting to cover every case that might arise under it, the main issues would probably receive less consideration, and the process of legislation become much more protracted and cumbersome. Moreover, in many cases, much of the detail dealt with highly technical matters with which—except where a principle was involved—it would be mere waste of time for Parliament to concern itself. Such were regulations under the Health Act, the Food and Drugs Act, tho Judicature Act, the Bankruptcy Act, and even the Mining Act. In regard to the suggestion that the regulations should be ratified by Parliament, Mr. Coates said that that would practically be the same thing as including regulations in tho statute. It was, however, the practice to lay important Orders-in-Council on the table in the House of Representatives, and there were various statutes which provided for that, for example, the Board of Trade, 1919; the Mining Act, 1926; the Government Railways Act, . 1908; the Hospita and Charitable Institutions Act 1909; the Health Act, 1921; the Education Act, 1914; the Friendly Societies Act, 1909; and others. That course enabled the Orders-in-Council and regulations to be subjected to scrutiny and control by Parliament. The chief safeguard against improper or undesirable regulations was the criticism and scrutiny of the persons whose interests were affected. It was the practice to submit the regulations to tho parties affected, who could, if they thought fit, make representations to the Minister in Charge of the Department administering them. If their representations appeared to l.im justified the difficulty could be remedied without the delay incident to passing an amending Act. That practice enabled more detailed and careful consideration to be given to regulations than would be possible if the regulations were included as part of the statute. Consideration of the letter was post-