HUTT ROAD.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 796, 20 April 1910, Page 6

HUTT ROAD.

V ; K THERE EXTRAVAGANCE? ; CONFERENCE OF LOCAL BODIES. •:■;■■ THE -LEGISLATURE -BIiAMED.' Allegations of extravagance in regard ; to the construction by the Railway Department of the new Hutt Road were, the subject of a conference of representatives of local bodies held yesterday'afternoon. ..There were present:—Messrs. F. T. Moore (chairman of the Makara County' Coun-.cilj/j.-Whiteinan (chairman of the Hutt .■County Council),..J. G: Harkness (Slayer of Onslow), and J. B. M|Ewan. (Mayor of Petone). Mr.' F. T. Mooro was voted to the chair. '■■"■' • '■•-' An apology for absence' was read .from .'.the.-Mayor of.Wellington (Dr. Newman), . vcho.:expressed his : .sympathy, with the movement.'■■"''.''' . ? The chairman said that attention had first been drawn to the cost of the road by Mr. Harkness,. whose : remarks had : moved the speaker to refer to the'matter, together with the fact that the. road seemed to him (the speaker) to be raised to .an unduly high level. .It had also oeen pointed out to' him by experts in ; regard to metal-that soft, brown rock had been used for a foundation, and that the durability of -the road would ba irnpaired by this cause. He -was also told that the 'dray, wages and other wages paid by the Department had beep on the extortionate side, ■ being 10 per cent, and 29 per cent, above the rates 'paid by local bodies.- The chairman also ■criticised'tbe construction of the footpath, and expressed . tko opinion 'that should be sought from the Department,: especially as regards the allegation that unnecessarily' high prices were being paid for materials, which were not in accordance with specifications. : Mr. MTJwan'said that as local bodies -were responsible for the; cost, and would •have. to maintain the road, they were interested-in the question. If. they, desired to-have a good road that would stand well in the winter it Mas necessary to ' have one . that could ■ be . easily drained, and he thought it would be an advantage' to havo it high. The question as to whether the. total cost of the -work was' too great should be investigated.-! - One regrettable feature was that when the necessary legislature for the construction of the road was before the House, local bodies' were hot asked if they had any suggestions to offer. Tbe whole undertaking was. put in hand without consultSng local bodies. As they were the. people iwho, would have to pay, they ought to Ibe.considered, and he personally had a •very big grudge against the Government Jin that connection. (Hear,- hear.) If ian inquiry could be held as to whether (there had not been gross extravagance in (regard ' to' the expense. of the i work, he would be-prepared to go as far as that.Mr. Whiteman said no I thought that ithe Department was'making a very good job of the road. ' There was no doubt, however, that there ; had been a lot of money -wasted. Had the work been' let Vby contract it -would have been finished long ago, and quite' as good-a job. would have been made of it. He did not see how local bodies were going to remedy fie trouble. The -work was being,, done according to Act of Parliament, and the local bodies had no say in the. matter till it was finished. He had seen horses and carts working on the road that he would be. sorry to see'working, for the Hutt County.

.•'•' Mr. Harkness said he took strong abjection to the principle of, the Hutt Railway and Eoad Improvement Act, inasmuch, as it made local bodies responsible ,for a road as to whose construction they lad never; been considered. He understood that the; Act was passed in the last hours of a dying session, and the clauses to which they . objected . were inserted ■without consulting anybody, and the local, bodies concerned knew nothing' about .them-'itill the Act'had-become law. He ..thought that the principle embodied' in the Act had i never been carried out in the past in any other part of New Zea-: land.'He was not blaming the Government; the fault lay with the Legislature, Swho were supposed to watch the interests of the public. He could not understand 3ww they allowed-this Act to go through -which took out of the hands of local power to construct a road which ihe believed would have been formed for ,-an amount far, less than had now been yapent.. The published denial by the "was simply a statement that !&e work had been carried out in accordance with the Act. He would' not say that the metal was not good or that they Trere not getting 20s. worth of work done lor. every pound spent. His objection was that the principle laid down by the Act was: absolutely wrong, in that local bodies "were made responsible for the cost of the construction and upkeep of a road about which they had never been consulted. The only thing they could do at. present .was to appoint a sub-committee to inquire what the road was.going to cost the local : bodies for construction and' maintenance. ■ They were told that when it was conistructed, at a cost:of £60,000 or ,£70,000, •and handed over: to them, it" would cost practically nothing for: upkeep for some years, but if the metal was not good undoubtedly it would cost the local bodies money nrthe near future. They should obtain details,of the money already spent and find out what the Government thought would be the total "expenditure. Messrs. Harkness, M'Ewan, and the chairman were appointed a sub-committee for the purpose indicated.