A TENDENCY THAT GROWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20642, 14 August 1930, Page 10

A TENDENCY THAT GROWS.

The customs legislation which Parliament is considering contains new provisions * empowering the Minister to remit or reduce duties if it is established that they are being improperly used to the detriment of consumers. The explanations given of the clauses have been far from clear, but it is evident that some effort has been made to prevent cither protective or preferential duties from being used to raise prices to an unjustifiable extent. The principles involved are not new, as references to previous legislation prove. The present Government is not alone in its fondness for devices of the kind—though it did conduct, during last election, an intensive campaign against the growing use of regulations and Orders-in-Council, a process,to which the new customs proposals are nearly akin. Leaving aside detail, what the present legislation contains is simply another illustration of a growing tendency in government that is not by any means confined to New Zealand. When powers that at the outset are supposed to be wielded by Parliament alone are once vested in a Minister—which generally means in the officials by whose expert advice he is guided—it happens almost invariably that before long they are being extended, amplified, or made more intensive. In such a department as that of customs the development is especially pernicious. Duties, whether their purpose be British preference, protection, or the raising of revenue, are taxation. The power over taxation, to impose or to remit, is supposed to belong peculiarly to Parliament. If the Minister, no matter how excellent his objective, reduces or remits duties on any appreciable scale, he is in fact exercising powers which should not belong to him, for he is varying the taxation the people must pay. Parliament may have delegated that duty to him, but has Parliament any moral right to do so? In the instances quoted during the Customs Bill debate, the circumstances the Minister cites as justifying action could only be determined after careful inquiry taking considerable time. To accept and act on ex parte statements would be inexcusable. That fact means that nothing could be done hastily. It should be possible to wait for Parliament to judge and use the powers that belong to it. Yet the discretion given the Minister, through him to officials, is widened by Parliament as heedlessly as it was first conferred, careless of the responsibilities it owes to electors, and the cost at which the control over taxation it is throwing away was won in the first instance. If Parliament is not alive to this growing tendency, the people should goad it into vigilance.