SUPERFLUOUS LEGISLATION

Hokitika Guardian, 15 April 1929, Page 7

SUPERFLUOUS LEGISLATION

BOARD OF TRADE ACT,

(Nineteen Twenty-Eight Committee)

The Board of Trade Act, which remains on the Statue Book as one of the Dominion’s legacies from the war upheaval, is likely to he one of the first measures repealed by the new parliament. The Reform Government made preparations for this step last year; but unfortunately a congestion of'business towards the close of the session prevented these preparations being put in to operation. It may be taken tor granted that the United Government will give the matter its early attention ; hut the provisions of the Act are so drastic and so far reaching, that the community scarcely can feel secure while they remain on the Statute Book in any shape or form, the Act is the successor to the Cost of Living Act, a purely war measure, and up to 1923 it was hemmed around by various precautions which went some way towards conserving the common rights of tiie individual. Six years ago, however, the Government of the day determined to dispense with these desirable safeguards and clothed the Minister of Industries and Commerce with autocratic authority which enabled him to take charge of any business or industry he deemed to be in need of his attention. STATE INTERFERENCE.

The amending Bill bringing about this change in the character and administration of the Board of Trade Act was submitted to the House of Representatives only twenty-four houis before the propagation of Parliament and passed its second and third reading and was finally adopted in scarcely more than an hour. The Minister in charge of the Bill stated quite frankly that the object he had in view '• “ to substitute an inexpensive Mimste•• for an expensive Board which would hold office for five years.” The Minister got his way without a single dissentient vocie and forthwith was clothed with authority to (1) prevent and suppress any method of competition, trading or business he thought unfair; (2) to prevent and suppress any monopoly or combination he consideied prejudicial to any other industij . (3) to fix maximum or minimum prices or rates for any class of goods or services ; (4) to prohibit, regulate or control prices or rates for goods and services; and (5) to regulate and control industries in any other manner he con sidered necessary. These astounding provisions remain on the Statue B to-day as the law of the land more than ten years after the conclusion ol the war which made them, just possibly excusable. RELIEF IN SIGHT.

It has to be said to the credit of Mr W. Downie Stewart and Mr A. T). McLeod, successive holders of the portfolio of Industries and Commerce, that they made no improper use of the farreaching authority with which they were entrusted. Their fault—which seems to have been the fault, more or less, of every member of the House ol Representatives and of every member of the Legislative Council at that time lay in allowing such a measure to pass into law without making any adequate examination of its provisions and its potentialities. Ministers less discreet than Mr Downie Stewart and Mr .McLeod appear to have been, mighf have raised a perfect ferment of dissatisfaction throughout the country bv attempting to enforce the authority with, which they were endowed. It habeen left to Sir Joseph Ward and ht colleagues in the United Ministiy to give effect to the good intentions of their predecessors in office, and thei v * is not likely to be any unnecessary delay in the discharge of this obligation. It should lie remembered, however, that there is a considerable element of superficial thinkers in the country who confuse “ State Control ” with true democracy, and so hamper the wheels of progress.