DICTATORIAL POWERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20621, 21 July 1930, Page 8

DICTATORIAL POWERS.

The simplicity of the proposals in the Unemployment Bill was especially commended by the Minister of Labour, but examination of its text leads to the conclusion that grave risks have been taken in striving after merit in that respect. Regarded as an instrument of the Government's policy, the bill is an extraordinary example of either hasty drafting or careless indifference to the practical difficulties. Its deficiencies appear even in minor points; for instance, the provision for sustenance allowances for children does not contain any reference to age or dependency. There are many references to "unemployment," but is the meaning of the term so precise and explicit that it can be used in legislation without definition? Sustenance allowances are limited to not "more than 13 consecutive weeks," but there is no stipulation of the interval—-whether a day or a week—that must elapse before the recipient of allowances for the full period will again be qualified to receive them. These arc possibly defects which the Government assumes will be repaired by the Select Committee or by regulations. The most extraordinary sections of the bill are those prescribing the functions of the Unemployment Board. These are an expression of good intentions rather than an exposition of statutory powers that might be made effective, as may be judged from the following extracts from provisions relating respectively to its "main" and "subsidiary" functions 16 (b) To take such stops as in accordance with this Act it considers liccos- j sat v to promote the growth of primary and secondary industries in Xcw Zealand, so (hat an increasing number of workers will bo required for the efficient carrying on of such industries. 17 (1>) To take such steps as it deems necessary to ensure proper collaboration or co-operation between Departments of State, local authorities, public bodies, and other persons and authorities engaged in carrying out public works, so that the employment thereby provided will be distributed as evenly as possible throughout the year without avoidable interruption. Both clauses are remarkable for the redundancy and the ambiguity of their phraseology, but, of greater importance is the absence of any restriction of the length or the direction in which the board may "take steps." For instance, it might consider necessary the cheapening of supplies for the poultry industry, a point emphasised by the Unemployment Committee. It might not be able, even with such wide powers, to abolish the duty, but it apparently could requisition stocks of wheat at prices fixed by itself. What is the character of steps "necessary to ensure proper collaboration or cooperation" in carrying out public works? In its present form, the clause suggests that the Unemployment Hoard will have dictatorial powers to which departments of State, local authorities and the rest catalogued in it, will be forced to submit without protest. Not only that., lor if all "other persons" arc equally subject to its rulings, the board could lay down a programme of public works, to be evenly distributed throughout the year, and move battalions of workmen from one to another with the freedom of a generalissimo in warfare. The Government's intentions may be admirable, but, as the bill stands, the hoard that is to realise them will either be omnipotent or will find that its "wide powers" cannot be exercised at all because of the lack of proper definition.