Drastic Powers.

Thames Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 18606, 15 September 1932, Page 3

Drastic Powers.

BOARD OF TRADE ACT.

NECESSITY FOR APPEAL

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE VIEWS. "In vieAv of the assurance of the Prime Minister that the Government does not intend to introduce any more drastic legislation this coming session, it would be appropriate if the Government divested itself of some of the drastic poAA'ers"" that lurk in its inherited statutes," says, a statement by the Associated. Chambers of Commerce. "Chief among these is the Board of Trade Act, which has actually been the subject of draft legislation that has no yet, however, seen the light of day. . !

No Redress For Libel

"Under this Act the Minister for Industries andXommerce may exercise the most complete autocracy. He may hold a judicial inquiry or make an investigation into any matter Avhatsoever relating to any trade, business, profession or undertaking carried on for profit, for |the purpose of obtaining information; to control them. ; Such an inquiry must be conducted in private, but the Minister may publish anything he likes concerning it, and if in so doing he publicly libels or defames any person, that person is denied, any remedy. ' \

"Further, the Minister may make regulations for the establishment of maximum or minimum prices,? or rates, for any class of goods or services except Avages or remuneration of employees. In fact, the Minister is giA'en the absolute right to make regulations .for the cpn-r trol, in any way he deems necessary', of any trade, business, profession or undertaking AA'hatsoeyer carride on for profit; Such are the extraordinary poAvers bestOAved by this Act.

The Constitutional Aspect.

, "When the Act was passed; in 1919, the people were gravely concerned at the alarming rise in the cost of living, they were, perplexed by post-Avar problems and incensed at instances of alleged profiteering that had occurred. Consequently, the Act had the support, .of the whole House. It is clear, however, from the Parliamentary . speeches at the time, that the House was concerned Avith the cost of living and the suppression of profiteering, and the constitutional aspect of the Act .received no consideration whatever by Parliament. The Act was no doubt an honest attempt to cope with the problems of the times, but the methods adopted were arbitrary and dangerous in the extreme, and there.is,no reason ; whatever for retaining the measure any longer. \

Not a Dsad Letter

"It is not sufficient to treat the Act merely as a dead letter, because disuse does not make a law invalid. For that matter, the Act, far from having fallen into desuetude, Avas used only recently to issue regulations prohibiting the erection of any new picture theatres unless with the approval of ihe Minister—who has since exercised his power of prohibition in at least, one town in New Zealand. "The Act is a standing menace to trade and industry which are further handicapped by the strong deterrent effect of the Act on the inflow of overseas capital and the employment of local capital. The Act stands as a dire threat to all investors who might consider ihe launching of some new industrial, enterprise, with the result that they play safe by investing instead m Government bonds and local body, debentures. This means that capital, instead of being profitably employed in production and in creating emp'oyment, is diverted into nonproductive investments that increase the national and local body debt: "Fraught With Grave Peril."

'"Again, when it is remembered that Government departments engage in many trading; activities in competition win private concerns, it will be readily seen what use could be made of the Act by -Government- departments- or officials, .at the instance of a corrupt or unscrupulous Government, to crush a private trade rival. Great Britain rid herself of a similar measure two y«ars after the war. Successive political leaders in New Zealand have agreed that the Act is fraught with grave peril to the people, and legislation has been promised but has never appeared. The coming session provides one more opportunity to repeal this most objectionable and highly dangerous measure i that has subsisted upon more than a decade of procrastination."