STATE INTERFERENCE

Taranaki Daily News, 30 September 1929, Page 13

STATE INTERFERENCE

RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS ■’ AN EVIL AND A DANGER. NECESSITY FOR VIGILANCE. The curtailment of private rights which has been apparent during recent years, and the excursion of the Government into businese have caused many people to ponder over what appears to them a growing evil. The two following private individuals, express the trend of that school of thought which deprecates the hampering of private enterprise and the limitation of individual rights by the extension of the privileges of the Crown and the use of the latter in common businese transactions. “Governmental excursion into private rights has provoked a good deal of discussion during the past few years, and much good lias been done by the focussing of public attention thereon. Probably those who have provoked the very obvious violation of true principles of ofovemment have been actuated by the °very best intentions which, however, are not leading ue to heaven. It appears to me that departmental heads and their officers generally hold the opinion that they can confer much benefit on the public if sufficient power be granted to them. They would tell the public what should be done and how it should be done, and generally direct our actions for us. All this, of course, assumes a very high standard of wisdom in the Civil Service such as cannot be upheld by actual experience. The civil servant hag succeeded- in investing himself with much power and advantage, which are not available to private individuals in the conduct of business which is in competition. He being but human—as I still believe—will resist efforts to curtail the powers he now possesses. He ie more likely to seek extension thereof. To give the devil his due I would say that I am inclined to think that he does not realise the effect of his attitude to our institutions. He does not appreciate the vital importance of maintaining the right-of the individual to work out his own salvation, or damnation, as the case may be. TIME FOR ACTION. “All this by the way. Much squeal and little wool, ‘seems to describe the position at present, and the time has now arrived when action should be pressed for. The question is varied and wide and piecemeal rectification would fall far short of what is desirable. _ I have it in my mind that a commission should be appointed to report to Parliament on : (a) existing undesirable infringements of private rights, and (b) recommendation to rectify same. “I recognise that these infringements are scattered-- through many enactments, and that the task of the commission would be difficult. Such a commission would need to consist of men who are well versed and sound in constitutional law. Their report should be most valuable, and even if complete legislative effect were not given thereto it would promote a return to those ■ true principles of ’ good government which I fear have, been partially lost sight, of in a sea of empiricism. “The chief hope seems to me to precipitate the. objections to- govern -mental interference which operates in many

quarters. I am convinced that if many people who are seriously hampered could speak, as it were, with one voice, the power would be very considerable, and ; it may be that those in authority would realise that it would not be to the disadvantage of any party who may be in power to give heed to the very obvious necessity of rectifying the interference with private rights. The force which has to be opposed is that which lies in the desire of many people to receive sonvething without effort. There is a strong inclination among our people to demand that someone, perhaps the Government, should do something for them. It may be that herein lies the evidence of that deterioration of national fibre which has been well expressed as follows: — For what more oft in nations grown corrupt, And bv their vices brought to servitude, Than to love bondage, more than liberty, Bondage with ease than = strenupi’.s liberty.” In his reply to this- letter the writer states, inter alia: — “One thing we probably do not realise quite when dealing with the matters touched upon in your letter, is this, that not only in England but also in every British dominion, the trouble that we are experiencing here is manifest, and the reason it hag become so acute in New Zealand and the Australian States jg that the Governments of New Zealand and of the various Australian States engage in a hundred and one projects and undertakings which the older countries quite rightly do not dream of embarking upon. There are, as you know, tivo great schools of political thought. One holds that the land which is governed least is governed best, and the other holds that the Government should embark upon every matter and undertaking that it can possibly enter upon. In the one case you have the old conservative doctrine, and in the other you have the ultrasocialistic doctrine, and somewhere no doubt midway between the two is the proper course. TREND IN RECENT YEARS. “There can be no doubt that during the last twenty years or so, there has been such a great handling over of power to Government departments, both in the Old Land and in the new, as to cause the utmost concern to all people who stop to think where this trend is leading. It is referred to by constitutional writerg at Home as ‘the new constitutional struggle,’ as ‘the greatest change in government that has been brought about°since the Stuart period,’ that ‘we arc approximating to the administrative law of France, or the bureaucratic method of government obtaining in Germany.’ As you probably know, in France matters between the State and the subject are dealt with, not by the ordinary courts of law which adjudicate upon matters between subject and subject, but. by Government tribunals, and this necessarily places the subject dealing with the State in a very much worse position than obtains in England. It is this distinction which places the liberty and freedom of England in an entirely different class from that of the people of the Continent of Europe. “Bad as the evil was before the war, it became much more pronounced during the war* when the old-established principles of 'government had for the time being to be abrogated. As one eminent judge said, you cannot run. a war on the principles of a Magna Cliarta, For the last twenty .years or more, Government, have been getting out of hand, and now it would hardly be an exaggeration to say that the country is not governed by Parliament, or even by Cabinet, but. by the huge Government departments, and permanent heads of such departments. It is impossible for any body of men members of-Cabinet to have a first-hand knowledge of the various ramifications of the Government departments, and Ministers must be more or less at the mercy of. those departments. It says a great deal for New Zealand that we have such a fine stamp of civil servant, and corruption is a thing almost unheard of, but if ever corruption crept into this country, then with the great powers of the Government departments, the condition of things would be lamentable. The Government departments, too, have what one eminent judge called, ‘The enormouse leverage of the royal prerogative,’ at the back of them. SUEING THE CROWN. “You will probably remember that time was when if yon were suing, say, the Public Works Department, you would use the Minister of Public Works; if you were suing the Railway Department, you would sue the Railway Commissioners: if the Government Insurance Department, you would sue the Government Insurance Commissioner etc. Now, all these departments (except perhaps in the ease of the Government Insurance Department) have to eue and be sued in the name of the Crown. This carries with it great advantages to the department, and great disadvantages to the subject, whenever, litigation ensues between a Government department and a subject. “We have in New Zealand a great many cases where Government departments are the sole judge of matters coming under their jurisdiction. The Land °Board has bureaucratic powers under the Land Act, in respect of which there is in many cases no appeal, or at best appeal only .to the Minister. In the Land and Income Tax' Act there are. it is safe to say, scores of eases which are left to the discretion of the Commissioner. “The National Provident Fund Board, which controls a fairly considerable sum of money, and which in the course of the next ten or twenty years will pro-

coutributor, or of any. person claiming | to be a contributor, or .otherwise claim- , ing the right or benefit under this Act, I and in all such cases the decision of the hoard is final and conclusive. This is an instance of the ousting of the jurisdiction of the courts of a most pointed and far-reaching kind. What would be said of the A.M.P. Society, if the directors had the right of saying whether a man was insured, or whether he had any rights as a transferee or mortgagee of a policy, and the decision of the directors was final and conclusive, and no protection or appeal to the court was allowed to a policy holder? The whole thing would be condemned as an inquitous contract, and would very soon prevent the society carrying on business in the same successul way at it at present does. ■'■■ ■ “BLOT ON STATUTE BOOK.” “The Board : of Trade Act, 1919, is a blot upon our statute book. I venture to say you could : search the annals of the British Empire and find nothing to compare with the autocratic pretensions of that Abt. It is true that it was passed under war conditions. Those conditions have passed, but even under war conditions such an Act should never have found its way upon the statute book. I refer you to the power to make regulations under Clause 26 of the Act, from which you will see that regulations can be made differentiating between bodies of people engaged in the same calling or profession. One company can be permitted to charge a certain price for its product, and another company be made to charge a higher or lower price for the same product. In fact, the powers granted by that section could, if exercised, affect people in every walk of life. When you notice by sec. 2 of that Act that ‘lndustry,’ in the Act includes ‘any trade business, profession or undertaking whatsoever’ you will eee how wide the powers of that Act really are. What an instrument for oppression such an Act could be in the hands of a corrupt Government, one shudders to think. I believe it was the intention of the late Mr. Massey to repeal this Act when his attention was called to it. One of the Ministers of the late Cabinet expressed his intention of repealing it, but the Act remains. ‘ “It might be asked, how does such legislation find its way on. to our statute book? In my opinion tlie bulk of the legislation which has been parsed of re<eht years has hot been legislation that has been called for at the hustings; it has mainly been legislation promul-o-ated by the Government departments, who are anxious to extend the sphere of their influence and activity, and such legislation has frequently' been brought down in the dying hours of the session, and has found its way on to the statute book without either the country having an adequate idea of what has been brought forward, or the members of Parliament subjecting it to any effective criticism. Such legislation also comes about by reason of the fact that it is utterly impossible for Cabinet to keep a grip upon the affairs of the country, when the Government enters into euch a multitude of undertakings —undertakings which a few years ago were rewarded as altogether outside the domain of Governmental activity. It seems to me that what is' wanted is to get back to a saner system of ’ Government, and where matters can be carried on by private enterprisethe Government dedepartinents slidjjld relinquish in a great measure their activities, I have made mention of the use of the royal prerogative-; ’ I‘woiild' like to elaborate that a little, : In the'first place, the Crown is not bound by an . Act unless Specially mentidned Therein. If a Government .department’ carries on its business under the h.ime of : the Crown, it does not pay rates like* ah ordinary trader; it does-not pay income tax, stamp duty, or postage; it need not keep commercial aeeountK; any lose that it makes is made up from the Consolidated Fund. Often it “is difficult to know whether such department is run at a profit or at a loss!' : 'By reason of its entrenchments it can cripple and drive out of business its trade rivals. “An instance of this comes to mind in the manner in which certain nurserymen were treated, who formerly grew trees for afforestation. We have instances where trading departments are constantly pleading the rights of the Crown to obtain advantage over private traders.