No Questions on Payments To Party Funds

Manawatu Times, Volume 70, Issue 191, 14 August 1945, Page 4

No Questions on Payments To Party Funds

COURT’S DECISION ON POWERS OF LICENSING COMMISSION. (Per Preats Association.) WELLINGTON, August 13, Holding that disputed questions or matters may rtot be asked or inquired into as they did not “touch the subject of inquiry” within the meaning of section 9 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and were irrelevant, the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) today delivered his judgment on the case stated by the Licensing Commission. He ruled that the Commission had no power to ask the witnesses certain questions concerning contributions to party funds or political candidates by persons or companies connected with the licensed trade. In seperate judgments Mr. Justie Kennedy and Justice Callau, who were the other members of the Court of Appeal at the hearing, concurred. Outlining the authority conferred by the warrant or instrument appointing the Commission the Chief Justice said that the very fact that the Commission iself had stated the case indicated that is members considered that the case stated contained sufficient material to enable the Court to decide the questions. came back to an interpretation of the Commission’s instrument. The eubject of the inquiry was expressed to be “licensing matters” that enabled the Commission to inquire into and report upon (1) the working of the laws relating to the importatfon, manufacture, sale and supply of intoxicating liquors; (2) the social and economic aspects of the question of the working of laws and proposals that may be made for amending the laws in the "public interest; and (3) to make such proposals as the Commission itself thought fit for amendment of the law.

It had been contended that “social aspects” embraced disputed questions or matters. In his Honour's opinion that was not an admissable interpretation, nor could the further mandate of the “omnibus paragraph’ of the instrument be interpreted to include inquiry into the matters in dispute. * l l can find nothing anywhere in the Commission which warrants an inquiry into what might be called political issues, and in my 7 opinion the disputed questions and matters are questions relating to political issues,” continued his Honour. “The case stated by the Commission says iu reference to contributions to funds of political parties or candidates that ‘if such contributions are made the Commission does not consider the giving or receiving of such contributions is in any way illegal.’ Incidentally I would say that I am not at all sure that that opinion is a correct statement of law. A careful examina- 5 tioH of the provisions of the Electoral Act 1927 shows, I think, that the malt- > ing of such payments might possibly*' amount to illegal practice or in some* circumstances perhaps to corrupt practice. ’ ’ The question for the Court of Appeal was one of principle not of degree, and in the Chief Justice’s opinion on a true construction of the instrument disputed questions and matters were not within the ambit of the Commission. Were it otherwise there would be no limit to the inquiry if once disputed questions or matters were introduced. He could not see how the Commission could logically impose any limit to such questions in respect of either time or persons, and many classes of people might become examinable on contributions made during the last 20 or 30 years to any political party or parties or in support of the candidature of any particular candidate, and possibly on the disbursement of such contributions. Such a broad inquiry would involve “proposals” to alter the Electoral Act or perhaps the Legislature Act, not laws relating to the licensed trade. “It follows that in my judgment none of the disputed questions or matters may be asked or inquired into,” concluded his Honour. The Commission’s inquiry as to whether it should hear evidence offered by persons who had received such contributions or who volunteered to give evidence on tho subject need not be specifically answered. The Commission was not likely to consider or receive information though tendered voluntarily on matters which the Court on a case submitted by the Commission itself had held did not some within the ambit of the inquiry.