"CERTAIN THINGS"

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 123, 27 May 1922, Page 6

"CERTAIN THINGS"

The long-delayed initiation of the Thomdon sea-wall, a work of moderate cost, and a work thab must precede the initiation of the more expensive- railway-reclama-tion undertaking, was once more before the Wellington Harbour Board at its meeting on Wednesday, when a '.' soft pedal " note vas sounded by two members of the Board. Notwithstanding this dissentient element, Mr. Mitchell's effort to. renew legitimate pressure upon the Government, with a view to expediting „the; sea-wall, appealed to the /common sense of the majority, of the Board, which adopted his proposal that the B6ard should " offer .to undertake, the construction of the wall as soon as the necessary plans are completed." • The only alteration in the motion was made with the mover's consent, and was to the effect that the Board's offer should be conveyed to the Government not by letter, but should be laid before the Prime Minister by a deputation of the Board. With this decision there is no fault to find, but it may be worth while to examine the " soft pedal" arguments in order to discover what (if anything) is in them or behind them. Mr. C. B. Norwood, who lis chairman of the City Council's Milk Committee, is reported as saying:

The Government must know: certain things that the Board . did not know about this matter.*. . . The Government alone could, know whether it would bo possible to undertake soon this big developmental expenditure, .which was essential if the; reclamation was to: be used. •■'■■ ■/' ''•'■■■ '-. '■' ■'■"■■" .. "-'. '"'

What are these certain things " 1 If there exists in the situation any over-riding factor that has not found publicity in a frequently-de-bated argument, surely it devolves upon the Prime Minister to say so : and also to; either explain what the "certain things "are, or alternatively to assure the public that there is a real reason for not disclosing them. Will the Prime Minister take this action, when the Board's deputation calls on him? Or is the public to be left to believe that Councillor Norwood's "certain things" are conjectural or unsubstantial?

The second critic of the legitimate pressure campaign, as embodied in Mr. Mitchell's motion, was Mr. H. D. Bennett. * Mr. Bennett deprecated " continual bickering at the Government." If Mr. Bennett was speaking to the motion, it is hard to see where his "continual bickering" is discoverable. If he was speaking by-and-large, then it devolves on him to point out v.here the "bickering" has occurred. We know of no case m which propagandist effort in this city in the matter of public works, has exceeded legitimate bounds; we know of no case in which it has been deficient or totally absent; and until Mr. Mitchell took up the task Wellington interests, as compared with Auckland interests, were notoriously neglected. In this case,, the propaganda is for a national work, and for one which is a key to a greater national undertaking ; it is neither parochial nor harassing, but broad-based and above board. Mr. Bennett is also reported as saying that " from the attitude of some people, one would suppose that the Government was deliberately deceiving the public and striving to avoid its responsibility." The plain fact is that Governments often need to be pressed. To assume, that a Government is deceitful is not fair,-nor is it fair to assume that a Government is always alive to its responsibility and. therefore above pressure. If tWfre is no Divine Right of Kings, there is certainly no Divine |light of Governments; and any policy of " trust the1 Government," to the extent of sitting down and allowing Ministers to do (or not do) what they like, is quite foreign^ to democratic .principles. The people have a right to know. They have a right to be in the Government's confidence so far as publicity is' consistent with public interest.. Their representatives have a right, and sometimes a duty, to press Ministers. And fair propaganda work is one of the public safeguards.

If Mr. Bennett, when he objects to ■" shifting propaganda work on to the Board's table," means that the motion before the Board is illegitimate propaganda, we certainly do not share his idea of tho duties of; a representative o£ tho people. As to the argument that " frequent

clamouring" would justify the officers of the Government in becoming "callous," who are the masters —the officers or the public? The main safeguard against Governmental inefficiency is an alert publicity. If the propagandists put a bad case, then Ministers will score off them soon enough. If, however, they put a good case, they are entitled to a reply ; and persistence in a good cause will win. Faced nvith such persistence, public servants have no right to be " callous," and if they do become " callous " they do so at their' own risk.