The Hawera Star. SATURDAY, JUNE 2, 1928. ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 2 June 1928, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

SATURDAY, JUNE 2, 1928. ORDERS-IN-COUNCIL.

Delivered every evening by 5 o’olook In Hawera Manair,. Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltbam, Mangatoki. Kaponga, Alton, Hurley ville Patea. Waverlev. Mokoia. Whakamara, Ohangai, Meremere. Fraser Road, and Ararata.

For man y yoars th e Ch ri stie hunch “Press,” one of the chief Government organs in Now Zealand, has been .ploughing a lonely furrow in it's cam* porign against what it tennis the ‘ bureaucratic evil’’—the vesting of wide powers 1 in the. various departments of the State. For many years it was os a voice crying in the wilderness'; Ordcrs-in-Council continued ' J tO’ be issued, the “Press’’ continued to make its protest, and there was no sign given by the public that it was alive to a very real menace of the curtailment of its liberties and its rights. HoweveT, at the legal conference hold) in Christchurch last- month, the lawyers there assembled' devoted much earnest thought to the question, the discussion being based on a paper read to the delegates by Mr A. F. Wright, a barrister resident in the southern city. This paper, which made an unemotional examination of the trend of legislation in New Zealand, presenting a case entirely divorced from political colouring, has made a great impression on the minds of those, who have given the question any thought, and its publication in the “New Zealand Law Journal” has been applauded, an Auckland paper making the statement that the Law Society was deserving of the thanks of the people of. New Zealand for doing them sneha signal service. The Christchurch “Press” is naturally gratified that its opinion ■has been endorsed by such a weighty body as the Law Society, and it has seized the opportunity to reiterate its arguments against regulation, of public activities without mandate from a majority of the people’s representatives'in Parliament. The “Press” contends that, government by order-in-council is really a most serious infringement of the Rule of Law, and it supports its contention by quoting the opinion of Mr Wright, .who was- supported; by the conference of the Law Society and who, in turn, cited the opinions of some of the most eminent jurists of England. Lord Hewant is. quoted as describing the Ride of Law as “the absence of arbitrary power on the part of the Government” and “equality beforo the law.” The making of regulations l by officers and Ministers of State Departments, and their publication through .the Gov-ernor-General, acting on the authority of order-in-o ounc.il, endangers tlic Rule of Law in three ways. Mr Wright asserts: “Firstly: By removing,more and more matters from the realm of the Courts- of Law, and placing the determination of such matters iu the hands of State servants, vesting such servants with judicial and quasi-judicial functions, and leaving many matters to the discretion of a. Minister, State Department, or State Official. Secondly: By enacting, further, that certain actions and powers of a Minister or State Department or State Official shall bo final and binding, and shall not be questioned in a Court of Law. Thirdly (and this is probably the most important method by which the Rule of Law is endangered):— By the great and rapid growth during recent years of .granting .powers under the various Statutes to State Departments to issue Regulations having the force of law, thus bringing into being what is usually referred to under the term of ‘Government by Order-in - Couneil. ’ ” The “Press,” for all its vigorous denunciation of the order-in-council method, does not contend that the Dominion has been, or is being, consciously lead into a system which increasingly disregards' the rights of the elector to exorcise, an influence upon the trend of legislation. It recognises that the system has grown, and is growing, very much a ls circu force it to develop—or at least in the manner which circumstances make development easy and to which they give an appearance of inovltablencss. It recognises that the growth of the Public Service has made it difficult for Ministers to resist the recommendations of depar t - 'mental heads, but it holds nevertheless that ‘ ‘ Ministers were not sent into this world to enjoy a thornless existence,” and declares that they are not excused by the fact that politicians of all panties have silently acquiesced in the passing of Acts which “year by year strengthen the grip of officialism upon the throat of public ‘liberty and year by year*make the Statute Books, of less power and importance than the departmental official sitting at his desk.”