ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10725, 24 October 1928, Page 7

ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL.

Afißi. COATES DEFENDS . . ' PRACTICE. '

Tho Dominion Conference of: the Farmers’ Union recently protested against the practice of the Government putting through important legislation by Ordef-fn-Cbuncil, 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 tho -Far*, filers’ Union executive, the Prime Minister (tho Right Hon. J. G. Goates) stated that the practice of 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 t of legislation. The benefits were-obvious. The LegMature ha'd before it the main issues involved! in the legislation and the means by which its object was to he achieved. It was able to appreciate them better, and consider them more fully. If the Aet inchid-. eel a mass, of detail, providing the machinery for giving effect to thoseprinciples and attempting to cover every caser thfit: might - arise under it, ' the main issues would' probably Teceivc.Tess and .the' process of’,' legislation become much morei 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 he mere waste of time- for Parliament- ‘to'' concern itself. Such were regualt-iqns under the Health Act-, .the Food and Drugs Act, the Judicature Apt. the Bankruptcy Act, and even the Mining Act. Win regard to- the suggestion that the-,regulations should ho ratified b.v Parliament, Air Coates said that that would practically be the same thing as including regulations in the statute. It was, however, the practice to lay important Orders-in-Council on tho table in the House of Reprc r sentafives and there were various .statutes which provided for that, for .example-, the Board of Trade, 1919; the Mining Act, 1926|; the Government Railways Act. 1926'; the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 1909; the Hf-aTth Act. 1921 ; tho Education Act, 1914; the Friendlv Societies Act. 1909: and others. That course enabled _ the Orders-in- . Council and regulations to he isub■jected t-o scrutiny and control by Parliament.

The chief safeguard against im-proper.or-undesirable regulations was the criticism and scrutiny of the persons .'whoso interests were affected. It was the practice to submitthe regulations to the parties affected, who could, if they ihoiudit fit, make representations to the Alinister in Charge of-the Department’ administering them. If their representations anpeared to him justified the difficulty”could be remedied without the delay incident to passing an amending Act. That 'practice enabled! more detailed and careful consideration to ho given to regulations than would he possible if the regulations were included os part, of the .-statute. j 'Consideration of the letter was postponed. ,