The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1949 PETROL RATIONING IN AUSTRALIA

Wanganui Chronicle, 8 June 1949, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1949 PETROL RATIONING IN AUSTRALIA

'J'HE decision of the High Court of Australia t'nat the Federal Government is not entitled to continue indefinitely the operation of the National .Security Regulations raises two important points. The first point of concern is that when war regulations are .introduced into a community their nature should be appreciated from the start, they are extraordinary steps taken to meet a crisis. When the crisis is passed, then the reason for t'ne existence of such regulations has disappeared and the situation should be reviewed by the Parliament sanctioning the regulations in the first place. It is desirable, then, that in the original regulations there s’nould be placed a specific time limit to their being operative. . They should be so framed that they automatically ex pire within, say, a year from the cessation of hostilities. This would ensure, not that the regulations would cease to operate a year after the fighting stopped, but that within t'nat time the Government would be compelled to seek the sanction of Parliament for the continuance in force of any or all of them. Had this been done in Australia then the difficulties arising out of the success fill challenge of the petrol rationing scheme would not now be confronting the Commonwealth. The second point of interest lies in the fact that the challenge of the Government’s action in any direction can be more conveni ently made in Australia than it can in New Zealand because the Commonwealth of Australia being a Federal body must have a written constitution. The Federal Government has only those rights t'nat have been specifically relegated to it by the member States. Before the Federal Government can enforce its decisions or rulings against an individual citizen it is essential, when challenged, that it prove to the satisfaction of the High Court that the action which it seeks to sustain comes within the ambit of the Constitution Act and its amendments. Where the Commonwealth Government cannot establish its claim to exercise such powers the Court will not enforce such action by issuing any process. The Government in such eases is said to be acting ultravires, that is beyond its powers. It is frequently averred that the British Constitution is superior to the Constitution of the'United States of America, in that the former is unwritten, whereas fne latter is confined to the written document. The unwritten Constitution cannot be said to be something that is unreal, it is just as real as though it were written, but it is less likely to be challenged because the precise extent of the powers deriving from the Constitution are not marked out in any one particular document.. It would be difficult to support the argument that a contract between two persons is the more desirable by reason of the greater difficulty experienced in defining or even in discovering what were the terms of the contract. As the functions of the central Government expand it becomes more and still more desirable to know with greater, and still greater precision what are the limits of its powers. Tn Australia the administrative arm of the Government is subject to review by the judicial arm of the Government in a very clear way aiid the same is to be said of the constitutional position in fine United States of America. When New Zealand was a dependent country, stemming legally from the United Kingdom, it was necessary to enquire whenever Governmental action was being examined, whether such powers as were being enquired into had been delegated to the New Zealand Government by the Imperial Government. With the passing of the Statute of Westminster, however, New Zealand became a sovereign State in its own rig'nt. It had no delegated or derived authority; it had an inherent authority to exercise in its own behalf. No good purpose is served today by leaving the situation undefined in raspeet to the constitutional authority of Parliament. It can be said that no limitation can be put upon a supreme authority and that as Parliament in New Zealand is the, supreme authority—or it was once—t'nen there is no point in defining the scope of its authority. This argument, is plausible enough but it ignores the fact that this inherent authority reposes not in Parliament but in the people and there must be some limits to be placed on the authority of Parliament. because the people are not the subjects of Parliament, they are the principals and t'ne Government is their agency for administration and law making. Parliament has an authority which is limited as to time, but it also has other limitations as well. What are they? What purpose is served in having them recorded in English constitutional practice and precedent and not available in definite and precise form so that eae'n individual citizen may know them?

The question as to whether New Zealand should adopt a written constitution is not a purely academic one. The decision of the Labour Party Conference 1o override Parliament and direct that it shall hold a referendum on the question of compulsory military training in peacetime brings up the whole question as to w'nat constitutes the authority of Parliament Recently, with the consent of both parties in the House of Representatives, it may presumably be said that the House of Representatives unanimously decided that a referendum should be taken to decide certain simple issues in respect to changes to be made in the liquor licensing laws of t'nis country. Parliament then decided that the issue must be settled. Now, with an almost unanimous House of Representatives in favour of a certain step being taken in respect to defence, it will not have the opportunity presumably even of discussing the subject as to whether a Referendum shall be taken on the defence issue, or if it does discuss the subject it will be a futile exercise because the decision has already been made and Parliament must obey. This exercising of a decision in the one instance and not exercising it in the other is highly unsatisfactory and it becomes necessary for the position to be made clear as to when and under what conditions any decision is to be referred to the people by way of referendum. Such a clarification could be made by passing'a Constitution Act for New Zealand, setting out of thfc powers of°the Cabinet, of the House of Representatives, of the Legislative Council, of the Supreme Court, and how the constitution is to be altered. The question whether New Zealand should have, a written constitution is now a live issue.