From the Kearney Files
Sydney 6th November 1922
BATTLE OF BRIDGES
NO DELAY THE SLOGAN
THE NEW PROBLEM
Correspondence by ("the Critic")
Ball's Head
If a short extension of the 1913 inquiry is inevitable then Ball's Head cannot be dismissed this time as too far away. It is very much in the picture. The enormous increase in population and the vast modification in the handling of traffic made possible by the extensions of railway and wharfage accomodation to and around Darling Harbour in the last eight years, have brought Ball's Head into such prominence that it must be considered afresh. All this may be left for the moment as beyond the layman's province, and I am only concerned that there shall be no waste of precious time. The layman, however, is mightily concerned about the Government's proposals for taxation to finance the building of any bridge whether constructed with an arch or without it, and here delay may be inevitable, because ministers have not apparently considered the scope or probable burden of their own bill. They have thrown another bomb shell. Whoever could have dreamed that labour's callous disregard of the rights of property owners within the area of construction would be endorsed by a Government elected because it was elected to see fair play? The bill drafted by a Labour Government has been adopted as to confiscatory clauses lock, stock, and barrell, and provisions in the Public Works Act expressly designed to give the property owner reasonable protection are to repealed for the purposes of the bridge. The constructing authority --- the Works Department again --- is not to be obliged to give direct access unless it pleases, no matter what hardship.
It may blast where and how it decides, and damage shall be no question for courts or arbitrators. A part of the owners land may be resumed and the rest may be rendered valueless, at all events from a sentimental point of view, but the constructing authority will not have to show cause. So the bill passed by the assembly runs. Is it not this offering a premium to the Legislative Council so to amend the measure that the Government may decline to consider building a bridge at all? Who then will be charged with causing delay? Will humble critics like myself be pilloried as in the pay of the ferry company.
But consider again the principal of taxation in declaring a betterment area. A vast amount of traffic from suburbs outside the area will have free course and be glorified when the bridge is finished in 15 or 20 years --- if we allow time for designing, amending designs, and bringing the preliminary work to a close --- but suburbs already heavily taxed within the bridge area are to have a new terror added to their list of burdens in having to pay for the bridge beforehand. This is not a matter to be dismissed with the wave of a hand. It is going to be a very serious business indeed for the Government, and th ine sooner Ministers get down to a statesmanlike discussion of it the better. As things are, one cannot help feeling that the Bridge Bill and everything connected with it has been left in the hands of the Works Department; and the Cabinet, eager to be rid of the nuisance, has accepted new proposals , or adopted old ones, without question.
Surely in the public interests, it is time that the bridge should be treated as something worthy of the keenest scrutiny. Only so can time be saved, and that truly is the essence of the contract between the public and the Government.
Sydney 6th November 1922
BATTLE OF BRIDGES
NO DELAY THE SLOGAN
THE NEW PROBLEM
Correspondence by ("the Critic")
Ball's Head
If a short extension of the 1913 inquiry is inevitable then Ball's Head cannot be dismissed this time as too far away. It is very much in the picture. The enormous increase in population and the vast modification in the handling of traffic made possible by the extensions of railway and wharfage accomodation to and around Darling Harbour in the last eight years, have brought Ball's Head into such prominence that it must be considered afresh. All this may be left for the moment as beyond the layman's province, and I am only concerned that there shall be no waste of precious time. The layman, however, is mightily concerned about the Government's proposals for taxation to finance the building of any bridge whether constructed with an arch or without it, and here delay may be inevitable, because ministers have not apparently considered the scope or probable burden of their own bill. They have thrown another bomb shell. Whoever could have dreamed that labour's callous disregard of the rights of property owners within the area of construction would be endorsed by a Government elected because it was elected to see fair play? The bill drafted by a Labour Government has been adopted as to confiscatory clauses lock, stock, and barrell, and provisions in the Public Works Act expressly designed to give the property owner reasonable protection are to repealed for the purposes of the bridge. The constructing authority --- the Works Department again --- is not to be obliged to give direct access unless it pleases, no matter what hardship.
It may blast where and how it decides, and damage shall be no question for courts or arbitrators. A part of the owners land may be resumed and the rest may be rendered valueless, at all events from a sentimental point of view, but the constructing authority will not have to show cause. So the bill passed by the assembly runs. Is it not this offering a premium to the Legislative Council so to amend the measure that the Government may decline to consider building a bridge at all? Who then will be charged with causing delay? Will humble critics like myself be pilloried as in the pay of the ferry company.
But consider again the principal of taxation in declaring a betterment area. A vast amount of traffic from suburbs outside the area will have free course and be glorified when the bridge is finished in 15 or 20 years --- if we allow time for designing, amending designs, and bringing the preliminary work to a close --- but suburbs already heavily taxed within the bridge area are to have a new terror added to their list of burdens in having to pay for the bridge beforehand. This is not a matter to be dismissed with the wave of a hand. It is going to be a very serious business indeed for the Government, and th ine sooner Ministers get down to a statesmanlike discussion of it the better. As things are, one cannot help feeling that the Bridge Bill and everything connected with it has been left in the hands of the Works Department; and the Cabinet, eager to be rid of the nuisance, has accepted new proposals , or adopted old ones, without question.
Surely in the public interests, it is time that the bridge should be treated as something worthy of the keenest scrutiny. Only so can time be saved, and that truly is the essence of the contract between the public and the Government.
Comments
Post a Comment