BOARD OF TRADE ACT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21982, 17 June 1933, Page 12

BOARD OF TRADE ACT

GOVERNMENT BY REGULATION AN OBJECTIONABLE STATUTE (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON. June 16. Pointed comment on the Board of Trade Act and its powers was made today by. Mr A. S. Burgess, president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, who urged that Parliament should make the measure more reasonable by revision. “ The judgment of the Court of Appeal invalidating regulations made under the Board of Trade Act is of prime importance,” said Mr Burgess. “ For years this objectionable statute lias been not only an open affront to the business community of the Dominion, but also a menace to the welfare of the country. The present case proves that an actual injustice has been caused by the use of the Act. The decision of the Court of Appeal vindicates the rights and liberties of the individual, which regulations issued without proper authority sought to abolish. It is also a striking indictment of the excesses to which the system of Orders-in-Council can be carried. " On the face of it, the Board of Trade Act gives power to one man, namely, the Minister of Industries and Commerce, through the Governor-General-in-Council, to assume a virtual dictatorship over every trade, business, profession, and undertaking whatsoever carried on for the purpose of profit,” continued Mr Burgess. “The wording of the Act invests the Minister with power to fix even the prices or rates for any classes of goods or services. The Chief Justice places a more reasonable construction on the terms of the Act than that Parliament has surrendered the whole control and governance of private business to Cabinet, but the Crown has in this ease responsibly argued in support of a complete dictatorship with Parliament possessing only a cancelling power of doubtful efficacy. This is akin to the days of the French Revolution or to modern Russia, “ The action before the Court of Appeal has shown that the validity of the regulations issued under the Act and the limits within which the powers granted in the Act may be exercised can be determined only by people resorting, to the courts in an endeavour to preserve , those liberties of which the State would deprive them. This is an intolerable position. The Associated Chambers of Commerce have consistently pointed out the objectionable and dangerous nature of theBoard of Trade Act and how it might be a weapon of despotism if it fell into unscrupulous hands. It gives inquisitorial powers, which although not relevant to the recent court action, might brand tire business community as criminals. “. .c it stand? to-day the Act is a threat to those engaged in advancing the prosperity of the country and is an undesirable relic of war-time legislation, concluded Mr Burgess. “If it is necessary to retain it in some form, then my association again urges that it should be replaced by a shorter, more reasonable, and less dangerous measure/

The foregoing comment is based on the fact that five judges of the Supreme Court of New Zealand in unanimousjudgments held that the Board of Trade (Kinenjatograph Films) regulations were invalid'-because they were repugnant to the Kiiiematograph Films Act and were also ultra vires of the Board of -Trade Act. In the course of his judgment the Chief Justice stated that sub-section (e) of section 26 of the Board of Trade Act gave the Governor-General-m-Council power to make such regulations_ as he deemed necessary in the public interest “ for the regulation and control of industries in any other manner whatever which is deemed necessary for the maintenance and prosperity of those industries and the economic welfare of New Zea!and.” . . -. “If this sub-section should be given the literal construction for which the Solid-tor-general contends,” said his Honor, “ the consequences would be more farreaching. It would be competent for the Governor-General-in-Council, for example, to make regulations to prevent any addition to the number of persons carrying on any business whatsoever, and consequently the commencing of any new business or to prohibit the growing of wheat (now grown in various districts), or the manufacture of ' dairy products (now manufactured generally throughout the Dominion, except in one or more particular district or districts). It is not suggested that such regulations would in fact, be made, but that is immaterial. The effect of the Solicitor-general’s argument seems to me to be that Parliament has surrendered to the executive the whole control and governance of all the indusaries and all the trade and commerce of the Dominion, subject only to the power which it reserves j under section 27, and the efficacy of which, I suggest, is very doubtful. To pasEj a resolution disapproving any particular regulation or regulations, even if such regulations were passed, the regulations thereby disapproved might have been for some time in operation before Parliament would have an opportunity of passing a resolution and have in the meantime done incalculable harm, but in my opinion the language of section 26 does not warrant the extremely wide construction for which the Solicitorgeneral contends. It can hardly be supposed that Parliament has surrendered or intended to surrender to the executive its control over all the industries (including all the trades and professions), of the country unless the language used is so plain as to admit of no other reasonable construction. In my opinion there is another construction open, and a construetion more reasonable than that contended for by the Solicitor-general.