WHO SHALL CONTROL?

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 881, 29 July 1910, Page 6

WHO SHALL CONTROL?

; CITY TRAMWAYS. .'. GOVERNMENT V. MUNICIPALITIES. PROPOSED LEGISLATION CRITICISED. ' .-.ah important debate place at last night's meeting of the City Council, when -the- Tramways Commitfte tabled the following remit on the subject of the Tramways Act. Amendment Bill at presentbofore Parliament:— ■.• That this council strongly protests /against the passing, of the Bill to 'amend tho Tramways Act, 190S, on •■ ...the ground of it being an undue and .. unnecessary interference with the ■ rights and privileges of local bodies having tramway undertakings. '" That this council joins with other locul bodies similarly protesting, and strongly urges that united action be taken to givo effect to.such protest, , and that it be urged upon the Gov- . ernment by deputation, and also by giving evidence, expert and otherwise, before, the Committee of the House dealing with the Bill. ' : That- all'local authorities having the control of tramways be forward- • ed a copy of this resolution. v Good in Parts Only. Councillor Miaren said that he was absolutely opposed to those clauses of the ■ Bill which placed the municipality in the position of. abdicating its control of the ■tramivays, and handing that control over to the Government. There weTe-certain clauses of which he approved—tho provisions for the examination of motormon foi certificate, nnd the setting up of ap_peal boards.. No-rrfatter how excellent-ly the Tramways Committee of the City Council performed its. duties, nor how oonstsiepliously.it performed its functions of ,, judicial;investigation- in cases ; affeefc:ing the tramway employees, it could not, .-•as a body consisting ; -entkely of repre'eentatives of the ; employees, be held to ihave the generally accepted constitution, •of tin appeal court. " . : "Kill the Bill." Councillor Trevor said every effort should be made to kill .the Bill. ■ They had men capable of doing their work now •without a Government examination. If, ■under the conditions proposed in the Bill, ithere was any friction between the corporation and its niotornicn, they would be unable to employ others, and would ihave to bow to the will of the unions. ■ They could very well carry on their tramways without' the assistance of the ■proposed board, and nobody would be any ; better for it. ■ ' .' , : Councillor Fletcher claimed that the Tramways Coinmitteb always carefully considered any , .appeals brought before it. Ho protested, emphatically against the' general Government ; trenching on the rights of municipalities. r There, was a tendency in this country for the Government to interfere with' local "bodies, and it should be strenuously resisted. The more'the, general Government, left the local bodies to work out their- own destinies, the better it would be for .all concerned. ■ / ... -.'•'. Councillor. Devine contended that the Bill represented an undue and . unneces- \. sary interference with:the rights of muni-' : cipalities. . It was reflection on tho council and its officers. ■" The public would not feel disposed to join in-municipal enterprise if Parliament could at any time interfere in their local affairs. The best patriotism in this country.was the patriotism of- local districts. They could not; too.strongly impress on , -the■ Government, that they resented this interference. ; Councillor Shirtcliffe agreed that if the Bill were passed, the-Government would ■ practically.take charge of the tramways. So far as he knew, , there was no reason

to he dissatisfied with the system in , vogue. As regarded a . Board of Appeal, . Councillor M'Laren was hardly tair lo the Tramways Committee. ' It was thero to protect the rights of employees so far - ". as was consistent with, the rights and welfare of the'service Appeals received the most careful'-consideration ' •Councillor Luke opined that theGov- / srnment was desirous of taking tho tramways under its own control, and with a number of other councillors expressed his strong opposition to the Bill. Confiscation! ■The Mayor said he had gone carefully '.through the Bill, and agreed with Councillors in their unanimous prptest. Bad as it was, the Bill contained two very good clauses indeed.. If Clause 7 had been in force, the troubles that" had occurred , on the Auckland tramways would havo been averted. ' Tho discussion had made it clear that . councillors were .uriani-; ■' mous ' in." - - protesting- '"■ against? the . Bill. In. • anticipation- of this .he had already suggested to Mr. T. F. Martin, secretary of the Municipal Association, that the Legislative Committee ■ should be called together in order that there might bo united action protesting against this . measure. In regard, to Clause five there could be no doubt Undoubtedly it vested the Wellington city •. tramways in tho Government. (Hear, hear!) Since the clause took away from local bodies the power to make by-laws it ■ absolutely vested the tramways in the Government. In regard to appeal .they wanted every : motorman and conductor to have fair, clear right of appeal. t Every councillor conceded this rights That the Government should have the right to control promotion was altogether wrong. If they wanted to prevent accidents the inspector- of tramways, who - had his eye on',' the men all the time, ehould be allowed a voice in their promotion. A casualexainination would not disclose the peculiar characteristics of the individual. If the Bill were allowed . to pass they might be compelled to take on a man though they knew that in time of trouble his nerve was unreliable. In Parliament the Bill wonld be referred to a committee, and the council should send its representatives to givo evidence beforo that committee. The council did not ■ fear any inspection of its-machinery or of ' any part of its tramway establishi ment, and'it agreed-that all employees should have a right of. appeal, .but they protested strongly, against the passage of the Bill in its present form. It was a' wors» Bill than that'of last year. If they were" going to' allow the Government to take their tramways from them this was the Bill to do it.

The motion for the adoption of the remit was then pnt and carried unanimously. .■■■•. ■ ' . .