The Wanganui Chronicle. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1947. THE NEED FOR POLITICAL POWER

Wanganui Chronicle, 28 November 1947, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1947. THE NEED FOR POLITICAL POWER

yiiE Opposition in the House of Representatives has justified itself by bringing to light before the House itself and the country the dangerous state of the present legislative set up. During a period of emergency the Government must take to itself extraordinary powers. These powers are needed by the Government nofto meet normal but to meet abnormal conditions. When-»■ fire is raging the police are fully justified in denying to the public the right of access to and use of the streets adjacent to the fire. Immediately the fire is brought under control, however, the police have no right to restrict the publie in its use of the highway. Nobody objects to a restriction of legal rights in order that a-crisis may be negotiated. Objection may nevertheless be continuance of such restrictions. The Opposition expressed strong exception to the Government continuing the war regulations in the third year following the cessation of hostilities. In doing so the Opposition put the public in its debt.

Oliver Cromwel) is the prime example in English history of the man who set out to defend the liberties of Englishmen and who by feeling the need for more power ended by extinguishing those very liberties that he had set out to protect. Anyone who to be possessed of more political power to do good is likely to follow in the steps of him who has been singularly misnamed “the great Commoner.” This is a danger against which all must guard and provides the justification for the political axiom that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. When the war regulations were promulgated in New Zealand Parliament abrogated to Cabinet a considerable portion of the former’s powers. This was inevitable because the. value of regulations under a statute lies in their flexibility to amendment and evocation characteristics necessary when dealing with matters of detail. Parliament, however, should have insisted upon retaining some measure of control over Cabinet by placing a limit on the time during which Cabinet might exercise these extraordinary powers granted under the war regulations legislation. This could have been achieved by Parliament empowering the several Ministers to make regulations for the period of the war and one year thereafter. This proviso would have ensured that the whole subject would, at a definite point of time, have to be brought under the review of Parliament. This was the cardinal error in respect to this legislation and for this error the Attorney-General and his Cabinet colleagues must carry the responsibility. It would have been thought by any student of political development that having made this cardinal error the Cabinet would have moved to rectify it at the first convenient opportunity. Instead of doing so, Cabinet, through the Attorney-General, sought to perpetuate the first mistake. It is difficult to conceive of anyone with years of political experience taking such a line of conduct. That it was taken does suggest that a new AttorneyGeneral is desirable in New Zealand or that if his advice has been ignored on this occasion his opinion should be treated with greater respect in the future by his immediate colleagues. It may be doubted whether the rank and lye of the Labour members of Parliament were made acquainted with the full implication of the two Bills which they were (tailed upon so suddenly to pass. If they had not been fully informed of the contents and purpose of these Bills they have a right to complain. It is inconceivable that they would have been so lacking in political sense as to have not perceived the dangerous situation which was beingcreated. The Labour members were being asked to sign away forever the peoples’ birthright—the sum total of their liberties. They knew that it is the especial function of the House of Representatives to preserve its own powers-intact in order that it may protect the liberties of the individual citizen. In short the House of Representatives was invited legislatively to commit suicide. The pressure put upon Cabinet was so strong that it compelled a change of front. That pressure was exerted wholly from outside the House of Representatives and was probably not confined to the Opposition side of the House. Mr. Holland advanced a suggestion which provided Cabinet with a saving of face and at the same time assured that the whole subject of the continuance or revocation of the War Regulations shall be brought under immediate and continuous review and that. Parliament shall consider the recommendations during 1948.

If the situation which was developing as a result of the proposed legislative step was due to incompetence on the part of the Attorney-General—and that is the most generous interpretation that can be placed upon the. recent line of action—then while that incompetence remains where it is the situation .will continue to be unsatisfactory and will require constant vigilance on the part of the Opposition as guardians of the authority of the House of Representatives and the protectors of the public interest. The legislative project, however, has shown to the public how essential to liberty is the Opposition in Parliament, It has proved itself to lie what it should be—the counterpoise of the Government. The satisfaction to be drawn from the incident is that it has proved the efficiency of the Opposition to deal with such a situation.

The regrettable side is that the Government spokesmen .rave no adequate defence of this legislative false step.