WHO SHALL VOTE ?

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 247, 18 October 1926, Page 8

WHO SHALL VOTE ?

■ « TAKAPUNA TRAM PURCHASE. ALL ELECTORS HAVE RIGHT. SUPREME COURT DECISIOX". : | Whether all electors on the borough | electoral roll are entitled to exercise the right to vote on the matter of the I proposed purchase of the Takapuna tramways by the Takapuna Borough j Council has been a question which has, for some time, caused some concern in the Takapuna district. So much difference of opinion and doubt existed that the council, through its solicitor, had the matter brought before Mr Justicp Herdnian on Friday in the form of an originating summons, for interpretation. In his reserved Judgment, delivered this morning, his Honor held that the electors, as constituted by the amendment to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1021-22, can vote on all matters that any Act allows ratepayers to vote on, except as to proposals relating to loans and rates. The plaintiff to the cause was the Takapuna Borough Council, and the defendant the Takaptxna Tramways and Ferry Company, Ltd. Mr. G. P. Finlay and Mr. F. Lowrie appeared for the council, Mr. V. R. Meredith for the Attorney-General, Mr. I.eary, the lakapttna Tram Company, Mr. Gould, the Takapuna Ratepayers' Association. Mr. Northcroft, the Milford Ratepayers' Association, and Mr. Grcville, the Bayswater Ratepayers' Association. A Provisional Contract. On September 29 the Borough Council entered into a provisional contract with the defendant to buy its undertaking and property for the sum of £39.000. His Honor said it was a provisional contract, because the agreement expressly stated that it was a condition precedent to the performance, of the contract by the plaintiff that it should not be forbidden by the ratepayers of the borough to make the purchase. The agreement provided that the purchase money should be satisfied by the issue of bearer debentures executed by the plaintiff, which were to be secured by an annual recurring special rate over plaintiff's ratable property. As regulation 12 contained in the second schedule to the Tramways Act, 1908, prohibited such a purchase without the ratepayers first being given an opportunity of deciding whether or not it should be made, the plaintiff council, following the course provided by regulations 12 and 13 of the second schedule of the Act, had taken the necessary steps to obtain the consent of the ratepayers to the proposed purchase. Had the legislation upon this subject remained in the form in which it appeared in the Tramways Act, 190S, there would have been no doubt about who should or should? not vote when the decision of the ratepayers came to be taken on the question. Electoral Rights. "It is. of course, perfectly clear," said his Honor, "that the proposal to purchase the defendant company's tramways is a proposal which the law requires shall be submitted to the votes of the ratepayers of the Borough of Takapuna, and it is true that the necessity for submitting such a proposal to the votes of the ratepayers is created, not by the Municipal Corporations Act, but by another Act, namely, the Tramways Act. But sub-section 3 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1921, definitely extends the electoral rights of the elector to proposals which originate under Acts other than the Municipal Corporations Act. That sub-section supplies the elector with additional power. What formerly was the sole privilege of the ratepayer under such a Statute as the j Tramways Act has now become the j right of the elector, subject to the , qualification that he shall not exercise ! the additional authority at a poll taken on any proposal relating to loans or rates, by virtue of a residential quali-, fication, or by virtue of an occupier's | qualification. It was submitted that notwithstanding the use of the words "or any other Act" in section 3 of the amending Act ot 1921 the regulations in the schedule to The Tramways Act of 1908, remain untouched. This argument was based upon the principle that a subsequent general Act does not affect a prior special Act by implication. But in the present case there is something mdre than an alteration of the law by implication. Express words are used which extend the right of electors to vote to proposals which under any Act other than The Municipal Corporations Act- are submitted to the voes of the ratepayers. It may seem anomalous j that under the Tramways Act the ratepayers shall initiate he proceedings by demanding that a proposal shall be sub- I mitted to a vote and that in the end I the electors shall decide the matter, but >ne cannot avoid the plain words used j in section 3 of the amending Act of 1921. j The language compels mc to decide that I unless they are prohibited by the proviso the electors must determine whether or not the purchase shall take | place. | Loan or Rate? But does the proposal relate to a loan or to a rate? In the present case, the only question that the electors will have to decide, is whether or not a purchase of the Tramway Company's property shall be made. One can imagine that a local body might be able to purchase a tramway without raising a loan and without levying a rate. In such a case could it be contended that j the proposal related to a loan or to j a rate? 1 don t think so. The notice I published by the plaintifl council informs ! the electorate that a loan will be raised that a rate will be levied, and that the' performance of the contract to which it is a party is contingent upon the ratepayers sanctioning a loan at a poll to be held subsequently. The present proposal is no more and no less than a proposal to purchase a tramway, to which it asks the electors to consent. When a loan proposal is submitted I to the electors later on, then residential • and occupiers' qualifications will give no authority to an elector to vote, but that stage has not yet been reached. At present the local authority has done no j more than make a proposal upon which the law has declared that a person whose name appears on the district electors' roll, for the time being in force shall be entitled to express his sentiments through medium of a ballot box. To the question asked in the originating summons T return the answer "Yea."