POLITICAL FUNDS

Timaru Herald, Volume CLVIII, Issue 23278, 14 August 1945, Page 4

POLITICAL FUNDS

Gifts By Licensed Trade Not Within Ambit Of Commission

Decision Of Court Of Appeal

(N.Z.P.A.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 13. Holding that disputed questions or matters may not be asked or inquired into as they did not “touch the subject of the inquiry” within the meaning of Section 9 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and were irrelevant, the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, to-day delivered his judgment on the case stated by the Lieftnsinp- Commission. He ruled that the Commission had no power to ask witnesses certain questions concerning contributions to Party funds or political candidates by persons or companies connected with the Licensed Trade. In separate judgments, Mr Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Callan, who were the other members of the Court of Appeal at the hearing, concurred.

Outlining the authority conferred by the warrant or instrument appointing the Commission, the Chief Justice saici that the fact tnat the Commission itself had stated the case indicated that its members considered that the case stated contained sufficient material to enable the Court to decide the questions. It came back to an interpretation of the Commission’s instrument. The subject of inquiry was expressed to be “licensing matters.” That enabled the Commission to inquire into and report upon: (1) the working of the laws relating to the importation, manufacture, sale and supply of intoxicating liquors; (2) the social and economic aspects of the question of the working of the laws and proposals that may be made for amending the laws in the public interest, and (3) to make such proposals as the Commission itself thought for the amendment of the law.

It had been contended that “social ■'aspects” embraced disputed questions or matters. In his Honour’s opinion that was not an admissible Interpretation, nor could the further mandate of the “omnibus paragraph” of the instrument be interpreted to include an inquiry into matters in dispute. Political Issues “I can find nothing anywhere in the Commission wnich warrants an inquiry into what might be called political issues, and in mv opinion the disputed questions and matters are questions relating to political issues,” continued his Honour. “The case stated by the Commission says, in reference to contributions to the funds of political parties or candidates, that if such contributions are made the Commission does not consider tne giving or receiving of such contributions is in any way illegal, incidentally I would say that I am not at all sure that that opinion is a correct statement of law. A careful examination of the provisions of the Electoral Act, 1927, shows, I think, that the making of such payments might possibly amount to illegal practice or, in some circumstances, perhaps to corrupt practice.” The question for the Court of Appeal was one of principle, not of degree, and in the Chief Justice’s opinon on the true construction of the instrument disrupted questions and matters were not within the ambit of the Commission. Were it otherwise there would be no limit to the inquiry if once disputed questions or matters were introduced. He could not see how the Commission could logically impose any limit to such questions in respect of either time or persons, and many classes of people might become examinable on contributions made during the last 20 or 30 years to any political party Or parties, or on the supnort of the candidature of any particular candidate and, possibly, on the disbursement of such contributions. Such a broad inquiry would involve “proposals” to alter the Electoral' Act or. perhaps, the Legislature Act, not the laws relating to the Licensed Trade. Questions Debarred “It follows that in my judgment none of the disputed questions or matters may be asked or inquired into,” concluded his Honour. “The Commission’s inquiry as to whether it should hear evidence offered by persons who had received such contributions or who volunteered to give evidence on the subject need not be specifically answered. The Commission was not likely to consider cr receive information, though tendered voluntarily, on matters which the Court, on a case submitted by the Commission itself, had held did not come within the ambit of the inquiry.”