LAW AND THE INDIVIDUAL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22545, 9 October 1936, Page 10

LAW AND THE INDIVIDUAL

For the second time this year Parliament is being asked to waive the requirements of established law in favour of an individual. The Reserve Bank Act demands British nationality by birth as a qualification for appointment to the bank board. The Government appointed Mr. Mark Silverstone, who is not thus qualified. He has been naturalised for some 50 years, long enough for everyone to have forgotten that he was ever anything but a British subject. Still, the law if the law, and as it stands he cannot legally take his seat. Therefore his appointment is to be specially validated. There is no reason, other than the provision of the statute, why Mr. Silverstone should not serve on the board; though the special qualifications for the post, claimed on his behalf by the Minister of Finance, have not been very definitely described. The point is whether it is desirable to have these Parliamentary dispensations for individuals. If the Government thinks British nationality by birth is not essential to a director, let it repeal the original clause. If it thinks the restriction should continue, let it be applied to everyone, without making any special exceptions. It is quite evident there is confusion of thought in the ranks of the Government. Mr. W. J. Lyon, for example, suggests that unless naturalisation makes a man a British subject in every way the law is mere hypocrisy. There is a good deal to be said for this view, but it is an argument for abolishing the clause, not waiving it. If the Government is determined to have Mr. Silverstone on the board —as it is entitled to do if it believes nobody else with equal claims is available—it should go the whole way, by altering the law which makes him ineligible.