THE CROWN IN BUSINESS

Hokitika Guardian, 13 April 1929, Page 2

THE CROWN IN BUSINESS

CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL VIEWPOINTS.

(Nineteen Twenty-Eight Committee.)

At the Legal Conference held in Wellington last week, Mr R. L. Ziman, one of Auckland’s foremost barristers, read a paper entitled “The Crown in Business, considered (from the Constitutional and Legal Viewpoints,” which had the preliminary advantage of boing intelligible to laymen as well as to the speaker’s fellow practitioners. In introducing his subject, Mr Ziman reminded the conference that the Crown was the symbol of the British Commonwealth of Nations and that the late Mr Justice Alpers from the Bench had deprecated the appearance of His Majesty the King so frequently in his Courts, in name, “ as a litigant in connection with these many Government Departments.” The allusion to this incident is justified by an* observation offered by the Lord Chief Justice of England not so very long ago to the effect that during recent years there had been a marked and increasing development of bureaucratic pretensions the essence and aim of which were to withdraw more and more matters and topics from the jurisdiction off the Courts and to set them apart for purely official determination. During the last thirty years, and particularly during the last fifteen years, this tendency towards socialistic legislation and administration probably has been more prolific in New Zealand than it has been in any other part of the world. LEGACY FROM THE WAR.

Its progress inevitably received n strong impetus during the war, when there was little inclination on the part of the public to question any steps the Government thought desirable to take in the interests of the Dominion and the Empire. When the crisis had passed however, both our legislators and our high officials displayed a marked reluctance to divest themselves otf the extraordinary powers with which they had been invested while the whole fate, of, the world seemed hanging in the balance. While other communities, British and foreign alike, were gladly casting aside the shackles of war-time legislation, New Zealand was actually forging fresh legislation tetters for its long-suffering people. Notable examples otf these obstacles to national expansion and progress remain in the shape of the Board of Trade Act, 1919; the War Regulations Continuance Act of 1920; the Public Trust Office Amendment Act of 1922, and the whole series of “Control” Acts which entangles huge measure otf the export trade of the country in a mesh of regulations and arbitrary restrictions at a time when there is more urgent need than ever before for the encouragement of free exercise of private enterprise. In these circumstances the clearly expressed opinion of the legal profession, with its implied promise of expert assistance, is doubtiy hearteniug to the commercial community.

A FATIt FIELD. Mr Ziman says not a word for or against State trading, but he insists upon a Hair field and no favour for both State and private enterprise in such undertakings as they may be engaged. Towards this end he propounds three cardinal principles which must be observed by the State, he says, to justify its embarkment upon “business.” {These are,

(1) That the State trading activivities be carried on under conditions which give it no unfair advantage in law over private traders in the

same line. (2) That the State trading activity be so carried on that its results are capable of accurate comparison with those of enterprise in the same line. (3) That the State trading activity be carried on in such iforin as not to work any hardship on individuals

having no association with it. To the second requirement is added the comment, “this clearly cannot be the case when the State department is endowed with privileges, prerogatives and exemptions,” and to the third a comment to the effect that the State must assume the same responsibilities as are imposed upon individual traders. Of course, the whole position cannot be covered in these brief passages, but ill- Ziman has indicated very clearly the direction in which reform should proceed and the urgent need for its immediate introduction.