BLANKET LEGISLATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26916, 30 October 1948, Page 6

BLANKET LEGISLATION

The dealings of the Government in shipping matters during the past two or three years have provided a record of unfortunate trading operations carried on without statutory authority. Now, with the ostensible purpose of legalising these activities, a. clause has been introduced into the Finance Bill which not only gives the required power but states it in such broad terms that objections have been raised in the House. The sequence of events is one which must create a most unfavourable impression. When challenged with the suggestion that the clause might be used in future if the Government wished to take over the Lyttelton ferry, Mr Nash said it “ merely ” gave in relation to existing ships operated by the Government a power which was desirable. The Government no doubt embarked on its shipping ventures with high hopes and in the confidence that it was competent, in law and ability, to carry them out. Its confidence in both respects was misplaced. Nothing 'can be done by Act of Parliament to make a Government more able than its members or its advisers, but it was proper that in law it should be made competent to operate trading vessels. The action which has been taken is correct in procedure, but the intention behind it must be regarded as open to question. This is not the only occasion on which the Government has seized wide powers on minor excuses, and a Government which acts in such a manner must expect to be regarded with suspicion. The principal shipping ventures in the past have been those carried o,ut by the Pamir and these were attended with such success that it was recently decided to return the barque freely to Finland as a gesture of international goodwill. In spite of this reduction in the Government’s shipping interests, Mr Nash still seeks to claim general instead of specific powers, which could be detailed briefly enough. Of course, it may be argued that the State cannot foresee what circumstances may arise in the future which may mfike it advisable to charter or purchase shipping, but that raises a question of policy which should be separately debated. The record of past shipping ventures is not such as would incline the taxpayer to view favourably an extension or even a renewal of such activities and, as the immediate post-war shipping difficulties are gradually overcome, the need for the State to engage ip this field is being removed.