MINISTER'S POWERS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21454, 30 March 1933, Page 10

MINISTER'S POWERS

FILM LICENCE REFUSED

CONTROL OF INDUSTRY

COMMENTS BY JUDGES

EFFECTS OF REGULATIONS

[BY TELEGIIAPH—OWN CORRESPONDENT] WELLINGTON, Wednesday

The Board of Trado Act and the Cinematograph Films Regulations made under it were discussed by the Court of Appea again to-day when .the Solicitor-General, Mr. A. Fair, K.C., enlarged his submit sions that the powers given to the Gov-ernor-General-in-Councfl. by the Board of Trado Act were extraordinarily wide and almost unlimited. The case before the Court was an application brought by Robert James Kerridgc, of Gisborno, for ,1 writ of mandamus ordering Roy GirlingButcher, chief inspector under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1928, to consider and deal with an application made by Kerridgo on December 2 last for a licence for tho projection of cinematograph films in respect of certain premises to be erected in Ilinemoa Street, Rotorua. Continuing argument for the defendant, Mr. Fair submitted that the power of regulation and control of the industry vested in the Governor-General-in-Council by tho Board of Trade Act was comprehensive and not subject to any review.

Mr. Justice Smith: Are there any other Acts similar to this, in British countries at any rate? Mr. Fair: Yes. In Australia there is a somewhat similar Act and in the United States of America there is a commission permanently sitting to hear complaints of unfair trading, price-cutting and similar matters. Banking and Wheat Growing The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers: That all goes to the method of competition. Mr. Justice Smith: Power like this could be used to control banking, just as the President of the United States wishes to control banking there. Mr. Fair: Yes. The Solicitor-General added that the Act was originally passed to deal with questions which the Legislature knew required dealing with at that time, and apparently it was thought there might be other matters which would require dealing with in the future in a similar manner, so it was decided to give the Governor-General-in-Council the widest possible powers. The Chief Justice: If you are right, you could make regulations providing that no wheat should be grown, except in a particular locality, say, Southland or Otago. Mr. Fair: It may well be. It gives the Governor-General power over the whole of industry. The Chief Justice: Well, and in a place like Canterbury, which has been growing wheat for years, the people would have to give over growing wheat ? Mr. Fair: Ye?, sir, but the people of Canterbury would.have their remedy, because they would raise such a protest that the matter would come before Parliament. Question ol Monopoly The Chief Justice: And I suppose it could go thus far, that the dairy industry being in certain difficulties just now, producing too much, the Governor-General-in-Council could say that certain parts of Taranaki should produce no more? Mr. Fair: It might go that far and, of course, that is the power being sought in tho United States at present in respect of wheat-growing areas. Mr. Fair discussed the Cinematograph Films Regulations and Mr. Justice Smith asked what would happen if regulations made under. the Act had the effect of creating a monopoly. Mr. Fair submitted that the regulations would not do that. If they did, it wo\jld be a very unfortunate result. Mr. Justice Ostler: Why do you say these regulations do not create a monopoly in the picture business in Rotorua ? Mr. Fair: It leaves the existing business in Rotorua without competition, but there is no guarantee that that state of affairs will continue. The Minister has to be satisfied that the public want is being satisfied. Mr. Justice Ostler: He has to be satisfied the monopoly is satisfying the public want, and if he is satisfied there is a perpetual monopoly. He perpetuates it so long as ho refuses to grant another licence. Mr. Fair said the Act was not directed against all monopolies, whether beneficent or maleficent, but only against those monopolies prejudicial to nn industry of New Zealand. If one theatre was already there fufilling a public want adequately, and tho Minister was of opinion that another one would result in neither of them paying their way, ho could refuse a licence. No man who was refused a licence unjustly would remain silent. "No Power of Review" The Chief Justice: He didn't remain silent, but" according to you he hiis no redress in this Court. Mr. Fair: That is so. I say the Court has no power to review the Minister's action. Mr. Justice Ostler: And no redress in Parliament unless ho has sufficient influence. Mr. Fair added that what tho regulations endeavoured to prevent was what was known in America as "racketeering." That was profit-sharing under threat of entering into competition.

Tlio Chief Justice remarkod that regulations could be framed to meet that difficulty. Mr. Justice Smith observed that one of the essential effects of the regulations was that a man had been stopped from entering businoss. The short title of the Board of Trado Act had tho words, "for tho maintenance and control of industry." Was there anything in tho Act to stop a person entering businoss'! He could be made to observe certain conditions, but was there anything to prohibit him entirely ? Mr. Fair submitted that there was. That Act did not givo power totally to prohibit the carrying on of an industry, and, secondly, it might not givo power to destroy existing rights or property. Court Reserves Decision The Chiof Justice: If it gives any prohibitory power, why should tho Govornor-General-.in-Counci! uot_ say, "Such and such an industry is inimical to the economic welfare of New Zoaland and therefore it will have to close down" ? Mr. Fair: Because that would bo legislation of retrospective effect and there would have to bo special words covering that. Tho Chief Justice: Well, you could extinguish every industry but one in New Zealand. Mr. Fair: It possibly goes that far. The primary object of the regulations, tho Solicitor-General added, was to protect independent exhibitors who ■ were either going to be threatened by big companies or who were going to havo their bread and butter taken away from them by th<* eroction of anothor theatre in a piace where both could not make a living. Application for a licence was merely incidental to the regulation framed for the economic welfare of exhibitors.

After hearing Mr. Spratt in reply for the plaintiff, tho Court reserved its decision.