RIGHT OF VETO.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 191, 12 August 1911, Page 5

RIGHT OF VETO.

THE GOVERNOR-rW-COUIfCrL. HON. FOWLDS' STRONG APPEAL. (By TWegMpfc.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, Friday. The question of the retention of the Governor-in-Council veto in the Townplanning Bill was the subject of a spirited debate in the House to-night, and occupied the greater part of the evening's debate. In supporting the retention of the Goyernor-in-Council veto, the Hon. Mr. R. MeKenzie drew the aUaation of the House to what he describud as a forcible instance where the a..?.ence of the Govcrnor-in-Council meant serious loss to the country at large. "Look at Auckland and its tramways," he said. "If when a few years ago the electric tram ways' Construction was under consider* tion, the whole matter of delegation had been referred for approve' to the Gover-nor-in-Council, probably a great deal of profit would now be gor<i«r to Auckland city instead of to a private company." The object of the whole measure, contended Mr. MeKenzie, was to provide another safeguard which couH not possibly do any injury to anybody so far as he could see. If local TkhTiph, he argued, could delegate their i%hts and the power of the people to private individuals, it was perfectly clear that there should be some authority before whom the matter should be placed as before a final tribunal. Mr. Myers contended '..-■fX the case of the Auckland tramway* was not analogous to the position :utlined in the bill. In the light of recent events it had been made clear, he said, that the inunicipalisation of all olectric services, including tramways, was an excellent thing in the pub'.ie interests, and he himself had, as Mayor of brcn largely instrumental in obtaining the municipnlisation of the electric lighting system of the city. But, he argued, a •body of men possessing special training and ability would be an efficient safefjuard to the public interest In such a matter as a town-planning scheme without the veto of the Governor-in-Council, and he hoped the Minister in charge of the bill would see his way to amend the bill in the direction indicated. Th? Hon. Mr. Fowlds expressed the opinion that tils "Governor-in-Council" warning had become a catch cry. II the House carried the amendment concerning the exclusion of the Governor-in-Council, they would introduce nn entirely new principle in Government. Would the House set out in the Stitute Book the principle that Government officials were to be the final administrative authority? Why, it would be a distinct and dangerous retrogression. In no British community would they get such a thing. The Governor-in-Council," he continued, "was the price that New Zealand had to pay for the long continued existence of the Liberal party. If you had responsible men from this side of the House you would have known the true meaning and the function ol the Governor-in-CounciL There is not a single member of the other benches whe has had experience in responsibility _ ii connection with the Governor-in-Council It has grown out of their knowledge The Governor-in-Council is based on th« truest democratic principle. The Cover nor in-Council is amenable to the pres sure of public opinion, and the populai idea to get rid of this Governor-in-Coun-cil is based on an entirely wrong impression. There is a very strong principle lying behind this official term. 1 appeal to the moderate section of the Opposition benches for the support ol a provision that safeguards, not only the rights of the interests of the public, but of the individual holders of property, It is perfectly ridiculous to try and raise t}»e cry that this reference to the Governor-in-Council would mean irjer ference with the right of local self-f oveminent." ™ WELLINGTON PRESS OPINION. \ (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day.

I Discussing' last night's' work on the I Town-planning Bill, the "New Zealand Times" says: "No one will be surprised, and least of all seed the Minister regret the decision of the House to banish the Governor-in-Council. Members ■who added the weight of their votes to the Opposition had very good reasons for doing so, for recent events created the impression that the Ministry has a desire to limit the powers of municipalities in the arena of local government. It is well this impression should, not be'crystallised into a fixed -belief, and the action of the House will spare Ministers a great deal of hostile criticism, undeserved and foolish, yet plausible enough in the hurly burly of election. It matters nothing that the House did something particularly absurd in making the change of final authority under the Mil. A bill that will do nothing to promote improvement of towns and cities in that regard is a blunt instrument, and we suspect that the realisation of this accounts for the chorus of rejoicing with which its introduction was greeted. We expect to seethe bill shorn of another clause before being passed, and then, long after it becomes* law, will citizens be waiting for the fruits of this legislation. The land question is at the bottom of town-planning schemes, and the bill is merely an amiable experiment in putting the cart before the ■horse.