Inroads Into Judicial System

Northern Advocate, 29 July 1938, Page 9

Inroads Into Judicial System

The inroads made into New Zealand’s judicial system by legislation enacted by the present Labour Government were commented upon by the organiser of the Auckland Provincial Freedom Association, Professor R. M. Algie, when speaking at the Whangarei Town Hall. Professor Algie stressed the fact that in a democracy a fair, impartial and fearless administration was one of the safeguards of individual liberty. The policy of the Socialist, however, was to substitute ministerial or bureaucratic tribunals for the open and impartial courts of justice. The legislation passed in the last few years in New Zealand had gone a long way towards the establishment of such tribunals, and there was a weakening in consequence of some of the outstanding principles of the administration of justice. In a number of Statutes, tribunals could be set up to deal with matters that might well be left to the law courts. Policy of Government. “Whereas a court of law has no policy, these tribunals owe their appointment to the Government and, to a greater or lesser extent, they exist to carry out the policy cf the Government,” continued the speaker. “No tribunal may remain strictly impartial if it exists for the primary purpose of giving effect to the wishes of a particular political policy. The result is that the mind of such a tribunal is in part made up before it begins to deal with the particular case before it.

“This defect is made especially apparent in the case of the Transport Licensing Act, where it is clearly stated that where application is made for a road transport service that would compete with an already existing rail service, the railway is to have preference. It follows from this that a transport operator who asked for a license to run in opposition to the railway could not possibly expect to receive as fair a hearing from such a tribunal as would be the case with an ordinary court dealing with ordinary matters. Right of Appeal. “Another serious feature about recent legislation is the taking away of ordinary constitutional rights of appeal to a higher court of law. Urjder some recent Statutes the only appeal is to the minister, and as the minister is a member of a political party with a policy to carry out it stands to reason that any such appeal must be deemed worthless of legal right. “Anyone who doubts this point of view should read the section of the Transport Licensing Act which deals with this particular matter. The Act was passed by the Labour Government early in its career, and the section in question declares that when the Minister is hearing an appeal he is not bound to take any evidence, to hear any witnesses or to receive representations from any person. Anyone who can call that a fair deal has no conception of the meaning of the word ‘fair.’ If such a procedure can be introduced by the party in power into one Act, it can quite easily be transferred step by step into other Acts. What would litigants say it such a type of appeal, existing today in both Italy and Russia, became general? “It is all very well for supporters of the Labour Government to say that they are quite satisfied with such a state of affairs, while one of their ministers is administering the Act, but are they prepared to say that they would be equally satisfied with the procedure if the same Act was being administered by a National Party minister? Unless they can answer both these questions in the same way, the procedure must be at fault, and the principle behind it ought to be got rid of as soon as possible.”