Government Says President Of National Party Did Not Influence Clause In Bill

Wanganui Chronicle, 10 November 1950, Page 6

Government Says President Of National Party Did Not Influence Clause In Bill

PARIAMENT BLDGS., Last Night (PA).—Protests against the introduction of retrospective legislation, and allegations that it had been included in the Transport Amendment Bill on the representations of the president of the National Parly. Mr. . .1. Sim. K.C.. were made by Opposition members in the House of Repretsntatives today, when the measure was discussed in the committee stages.

Mr. Hackett (Opp.. Grey Lynn), former Minister of Transport, said that the influence of the president of the National Party had >?en used to include a provision in the Bill which not only would frustrate the course of justice in the Supreme Court, but also would prevent an action being brought to the Supreme Court. The member for Grey Lynn was ordered by the chairman of committees (Mr Harker) to withdraw that reference, and he did so. Mr Hackett then said that representations had been made to the Government to have the retrospective Clause included in the Bill, and those representations were made by Mr Sim. It was a terrible thing when the laws of the country and the legislators allowed themselves to be used as tools. He said that the clause providing that proceedings before metropolitan authorities are not to be questioned except before the Licensing Appeal Authority would assist Mr Sim to either win a case or prevent it going to the Supreme Court. The Minister of External Affairs (Mr Doidge): Utterly preposterous! LONG DELAY Mr Hackett said that there had been a long delay in a case involving the question of taxi licences in Wellington, and that the Bill itself had been before the committee for consideration for three weeks because Mr Sim’s case was before the Supreme Court in Wellington. The people were dismayed that the highest Court in the land, except one. could be by-passed because of the clause in the Bill. The only possible reason for the retrospective clause in the Bill was to make it interfere with the Courts of justice, and and it was included because of the representations to the Government by the president of the National Party, who represented the defendants in the case. The Minister of Transport (Mr Goosman): The honourable member is speaking with his tongue in his cheek. Mr Hackett: No, I'm not. It is not often you come up against rackets like this. He was ordered to withdraw his remark and complied with the direction by the chairman of committees. Mr Goosman said that the Transport Department wanted the clause included in the Bill although representations had been made by the lawyer on the other side to have it taken cut. The Minister said he considered the clause was perfectly justified. He reviewed the history relating to the granting of more taxi licences in Wellington and said that when a case went to the Transport Appeal Authority the licences already issued were not only upheld, but the authority also granted the issuance of two extra licences. There was a technicality involved which formed the basis of a case to keep ex-servicemen taxidrivers off the road. The Minister said he did not believe in retrospective legislation as a general rule, but in this case such legislation was justified. The charges against Mr Sim were groundless, continued Mr Goosman, and he had never discussed the legislation before the House with him. Mr McCombs (Opp.. Lyttelton): It is odd that it should help him. Mr Smith (Govt., Hobson): They judge others by themselves. Mr Goosman said that at present justice and equity was being frustrated and that fact gave further justification for the clause. He would take full responsibility for it and he would stand by it.

Mr Mason (Opp., Waitakere), former Attorney-General, said that the clause would take the case out of the hands of the Supreme Court, to where it had been brought, on the grounds that the Licensing Authority had been prejudiced. The clause called for the most serious consideration.

The Attorney-General (Mr Webb) said that the president of the National Party had not come into any discussion on the clause at all. He said he was satisfied that the people of Wellington should no longer be thwarted in getting more taxis to serve them. Mr Webb said that the Wellington City Council’s committee had decided to grant more taxi licences, but the existing taxi people had “ganged up” because they wanted to nurse the partial monopoly they had. The Minister said he was not going to see exs°r\ icemen deprived of taxi licences, and the people of the city deprived of taxis they needed. Mr. McCombs said that since the taxi licences which were in dispute had been issued, it was reasonable for the Government to withdraw the clauses, to place on the table of the House the file concerning the retrospective clauses. Mr. Goosman: I have nothing to hide. COINCIDENCE! Mr McCombs asked whether any conversations relating to the clauses would be included in the file. He said there must have been some approach made to the Government to have the clauses included in the Bill. He said he had noticed the president of the National Party in the House some time ago watching the second reading debate on the Bill. That was rather a coincidence. It would save a lot of trouble if the Government withdraw the retrospective clauses as a recent decision of the Supmere Court made them unnecessary. Mr. Webb (Attorney General) agreed that there was now no longer the need for the retrospective provisions. He reiterated that Mr. .Sim had nothing whatever to do with the clauses, he had never seen him and he did not know that he was connectea with the Court proceedings. “I don’t want to attack a man from the floor of the House.’’ continued Mr Webb, “but Mr. R. E. Harding has attacked me in the Supreme Cjurt by an affidavit he had filed, and accused Mr. Sim of approaching ire on the Bill. He had to withdraw it. Mr Harding was assuming that Mr. Sim was trying to influence me. I would like to tell Mr. Harding that he was doing exactly the same. He should not judge other people oy himself, because his standing is too low.” Mr. R. MacDonald (Opp., Ponsonby): Go outside and say it. Mr Carr (Opp., Tixnarul: That is beneath the dignity of the AttorneyGeneral. Mr Webb: Mr. Harding did see me. He tried to persuade me to take the clause out of the Bill. I was very reluctant to do so. RETROSPECTIVE CLAUSE WITHDRAWN. Mr. Goosman said he would accept the advice of the Attorney General and withdraw the retrospective clause. Mr. Goosman said that since it was decided by the Wellington City Council in October, 1948, that additional licences were necessary, there had been a delay of two years until last week Mr. Justice Hay ordered that temporary licences should be issued. There was now less justification for the retrospective clause than at the time the Bill was drafted.

Mr. Marshall said the parties to the case had consented to the issue of temporary licences only because of the existence of the retrospective clause in the Bill. The Government was prepared to go all the way, and would not have agreed to withdraw the retrospective clause in the Bill. The Government was prepared to go all the way, and would not have agreed to withdraw the retrospective clause had that consent not been given. The Bill was then put through the committee stage, the retrospective clause being deleted. The Bill was passed.