AN OBJECTIONABLE BILL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 23, 22 October 1907, Page 4

AN OBJECTIONABLE BILL.

The municipal ■ deputation ; which jVaited on the Acting-Minister for Public Works on Friday, in protest against the Tramways.Bill, appears to.have been disturbed by the hostile reception given to its arguments, • but'yet need not have become so warm, and it.need not continue to feel gravely alarmed. Mr. M'Gowan is well-known to be a particularly., obstinate Minister,, who usually gives the : impression to a deputation that he has his mind fully made upshot to budge an inch, nor concede a' single point, whatever the deputation may tell him. He stands, in fa6t,'as an incorruptible sentry,' allowing nobody to pass until he receives fresh orders froni-his superior officer/ in this instance, Cabinet. So far, as the Bill is concerned with securing the public safety,' it is defensible; but the Government does not appear to realise, ! or, realising, to, admit that the safety and convenience of the tramways, public can be better secured by the municipality than by a State .Depart-.' merit. 'J. ne City Council is a body of citizens elected by citizens, and is guided, therefore, by a close'and personal ih-'l terest in the welfare of the public whose civic concerns it administers.' It .is :in rcspect r 'of this'intimacy with the public needs that a municipality,differs very advantageously from the formal and mechanical work of a rigid and precedent-ridden State Department. State interference with'"the tramways can only bo justified by flagrant dereliction of duty, or the probability of such_ dereliction, on -the part of the municipalities. Will Mr. M'Gowan say that he can find this justification in the conduct of the Wellington tramways? Of course he cannot truthfully say any such thing, and he did not_ attempt to hold such an untenable position, preferring to .rely on what he imagines is the greater soundness of the contention that it is the business of the State to protect the public—'' the individuals who compose the community of New-Zealand." So far as the State, or the whole community of New Zealand, is concerned, a muni : cipal enterprise, financed privately, is a private concern, and should be subject only to the restrictions which the State can legitimately impose on other private concerns. Excepting that general regulations are unnecessary, there is no grave objection to them in principle. But the Bill goes far beyond I general regulations, and,.as we showed on a previous occasion, confers on the Public Works Department powers of a most!drastic and exhaustive character, extending to control of every detail of every branch of management,,and embracing even authority to demand full particulars of the financial working of the tramways. Not only is the Bill unnecessary: it introduces the principle of representation without taxa-, tfon by .giving to the whole public, through the State officials, the control of an enterprise paid for by the citizens of a given municipality. Is it proper that the residents of Whangarei and Balclutha should have representation in the control of a project carried out by Wellington enterprise, and maintained by Wellington money? In this particular, the Bill is a'first step towards the confiscation of which there is a hint in the clause empowering the Government to call for .financial 'returns. We need not enlarge'upon' the practical inconveniences of a State control that works by rule, of thumb, without regard to the widelydiffering necessities of. such systems as those of Wellington and Christchurch. What is most important of all to keep in mind; however, is that Bills like

these are menaces to the healthy municipal life arid activity that do far more for real progress than can be done by the State Socialism of our doctrinaire Government. Upon this ground we urge Parliament' to cut away the objectionable clauses, or throw the Bill out altogether.