HUTT ROAD

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1793, 4 July 1913, Page 5

HUTT ROAD

COMMISSIONER'S REPORT. APPORTIONMENT OF COST. CITY'S SHARE, 38 PER CENT. The vexed question as to how the cost of constructing and maintaining tho Hutt Road shall be allocated amongst the various local bodies named as contributors in the Act ui'tler which the road was constructed has been advanced another stage towards settlement. Yesterday the report ot' the commissioner appointed to make tho assessment, Jlr. W. S. Short, was presented to Parliament.

The commissioner reports that in his opinion the evidence shows that the cost of forming and constructing the new Hutt lload be borne in the following proportions:—Wellington City, 38 per cent.; I'etone Borough, 18 per cent.; Lower Hutt borough, 11 per cent; Jlakara County, 12 per cent.; Hutt County, 8 per cent.;- Onsloiv Borough, G per cent.; Johnsonville Town Board, 2 per cent.; Upper Hutt Town Board, 1J per cent.; Eastbourne Borough, } per cent.;. Jliramar Borough, \ per cent. The' effect of this apportionment, the commissioner adds, will, if adopted, be very severely felt by all the local bodies, for, in addition to their share of the future cost of maintaining the road, they will also have to contribute annually the following amounts as interest and sinking fund (at 5 per cent.) on the cost of the road, assuming that it hai cost about .£IOO,OOO, as is alleged by the Railway Department, viz.:— Per year. ,£ s: d. Wellington City : 1,800 0 0 Petone Borough 900 0 0 Lower Hutt Borough 700 0 0 Makara County ;.... 600 0 0 Hutt County 400 0 0 Onslow Borough 300 0' 0 Johnsonville Town Board 100 0 0 Upper Hutt Town Board G2 10 0 Eastbourne Borough 25. 0 0 Aliramar Borough 12 10 0 ■£5000, 0 0 The Parties Surprised.

He adds, in conclusion: "The parties contend that this is a colonial work, and they asked me to bring the above facts before your notice, in the hope that under the peculiar circumstances connected with this case the Government, would see ite way to reduce the claims against the local bodies to .£25,000. . I have done so, but, as this is a question of policy, it is not fitting that I shßuld express any opinion thereon."

These, shortly, are the findings of the commissioner, but in his report he sets out at length the reasons for them. First of all, he gives a concise history of the agitation to have the road made by the State, which led up to the passiDg of the Hutt Road and Railway Improvement Act, 1903. Subsequently, as he points out, a conference of the local authorities was held, and they submitted to the Government proposals for a much wider and more expensive road. The Railway Department aid not do all that was requested, bilt ■ rather hss, but it appeared that the enormous quantity of 523,000 yards of earth, spawis, and metal, used in the actual'formation of the road, was to some extent at least required to meet the wishes of the conference. This part of the work cost about ,£82,500. 1 After the Act of 1903 was parsed, Makara County, and the Boroughs of Eastbourne and Mjramar, and the Upper Hutt Town Board were separated from the Hutt County, and ths amending Act of 1911, provided that all these bodies, with the Johnsonville Town Board, should be added as contributors.

"It was pleaded before me that none of the original local bodies had tli? remotest conception that the road would cost anything approaching to what it has cost, or they would never have agreed to the provisions of the Act,of 1903," says the Commissioner. "I believe that these statements are absolutely true. No evidence was given to me to show to what extent tha delegates to tho conference of 1903 represented the wishes of their local bodies, nor whether all the local bodies were represented at such conference, but it is clear that if the local bodies authorised or allowed their delegates to make the extravajaut demands they did, they ought not r now to be surprised that tho work has been very costly. Many Difficulties. "The apportionment in this case presents very great and unusual difficulties.' Tho amount involved is very large, and the apportionments-will therefore ]>e exceedingly burdensome and distasteful to all tho local authorities. The statute lays down no definite basis of apportionment that can be demonstrated mathematically or proved by the ordinary rules of evidence. In addition to this, .there are 110 less than ten parties ito the inquiry, all of whom are in the position of defendants." Mr. Short goes on to say that he ordered tallies of traffic to bo taken, and the result of those tallies, assuming every item to be of equal value, had been as follows: Wellington, 43.55; I'etone, 15.25; Lower Hutt, 12.87; Hutt County, 7.42; Onslow Borough, 4.47; Makara County, 11.71; Johnsonville, 2.84; Miramar, 0.13; TJpiier Hutt, 1.48; Eastbourne, 0.28. Then he invited tho parties to show cause why tho cost of the road should not be apportion-, ed on this basis, and the case had been argued from this standpoint. At the hearing the question had been raised as to whether he hud jurisdiction, and he had reserved decision as to whether he would state a case for the Supreme Court. Ultimately he had come to the conclusion that his appointment was . valid, that therefore lie had jurisdiction, and that as there was no dispute on any other point of law, lie had no power to state a case. He dismissed olso the contention raised on behalf of Wellington that he was bound by the appointment of Mr. Haselde'n, S.M., of the cost of that tliird of the road adjacent to Wellington. The conditions now, he says, are totally different from what they were when Mr. Haselden's report was made. The Case of Wellington. He then goes on to consider the eases of the local authorities separately, taking the case of Wellington first. He takes the various summaries of traffic and traverses them, calling the first result (quoted above) Result No. 1. It was contended by some of the parties that the onlv proper basis on which to compute traffic was to take the place of origin of the traffic. On this basis he gets the following result:— Wellington 43.74' per cent, Petone 12.94, Lower Hutt 7.84, Hutt County 3.23, Onslow 12.75, Makara 13.90, Johnsrnvillc 4.92, Miramar 0.17, Upper .Hutt 0.32,' Eastbourne 0.19. On the basis of reducing all traffic to the common denominator of heavy traffic by a formula which he propounded, he makes the proportion as follows: —Wellington 47.36, Petone 13.54, Lower .Hutt 13.27, Hutt County 8.44, Onslow 3.03, Makara 9.95, Johnsonville 2.25,' Miramar 0.27, Upper Hutt 1.56, Eastbourne 0.33. These results, as he says, are somewhat remarkable so far as Wellington is concerned, showing as they do that 44 per cent of tho total traffic, or 47 per cent of the heavy In flic using the road either comes froiv ." aop» to

Wellington: He rejects the a.!:.ca; : rn nut forward by the city engineer which fixed Wellington's share at 24.9 per cent. He considers that the basis of the benefits conferred by the road was arbitrary and guess-work, and that no two people would valuo thes3 factors alike. He, however, accepts as good tho contention that a lot of the traffic to Wellington goes to the wharves and does not benefit the city, lie also considers that Wellington should bear the whole proportion of the cost in respect of pleasure traffic by motor-car. The Other Contributors. As regards Petone Mr. Short soys that the borough will ultimately be a big manufacturing centre, and as power traction becomes cheaper and more general, the road, will be more used by the borough. For these and other less important reasons he thinks Petone's share should be greater 'than tho traffic, returns would show.' Mr. Short would not accept the basis of apportionment propounded by Mr. A. de B. Brandon for Hutt County, on the ground that its basis . was purely arbitrary. He discusses very briefly the reasons' far. the assessment in the cases of the othei; .contributors.

DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. VIGOROUS RAILWAY DEFENCE. When the report was tabled in tho House of lioprijeutaUves by the Hon. W. H. Hcrries Jlr. T. 11. Wilforil (Hutt) said that the commission set up by the Government had no doubt been conducted in an able, and thorough manner by tho commissioner. He had not seen fhe report and did not know what' proportions had been decided against the locol bodies concerned, but he knew that, whatever ihe proportion might be, some of the local bodies would find it impossible to their share. He thought it would bo fair that the local bodies should pay .£25,111)0, and that the Stale should pay the rest. He considered that Wellington City had jiot bepn saddled with an undue proportion of the cost of the road ."■nd did not claim that any of the local bodies should escape contribution, but if they had foreseen the actual cost of the work tliev would never have consented to its being undertaken. The local bodies were lieing unduly penalised because of a mistake on the part of the engineers over whom they had no control. He hoped the Minister would come to the assistance of the local bodies.

, A Bargain Made. Mr. AV. H. D. Bell (Wellington Suburbs) said that the local bodies were not asking for any concession., They were asking 'that thp bargain originally made should be adhered to. It was well understood at the time that the local authorities would have to pay some .£30,000 for the work. The Railway Department had failed to do the work at the estimated cost. Were the local authorities 111 any way responsible for that? They were being penalised because they had not had the foresight to insert the priceagreed upon in the Bill that came before the House. As a matter of fact, it had been anticipated that land obtained by reclamation would cover the whole cost of the work and so free the local bodies from the necessity of making any payment. If the proportions agreed upon were adhered to and no concession was made, one local body, Onslow Borough 9r\\ nc ''' wo "l ( ' have its debt doubled. "he Hon. P. M. B. Fisher: They would have to pay .£3OO a year. Mr. Wilford: Why, the whole revenue ot Onslow is only about <£2000 a year. Local Bodies Responsible. Th e Hon. P. JI. ,B. Fisher said that he thought this was a matter that would have to be carefully considered by the Government, ' but tlie attitude of the member for Hutt was curious in view of his previous attitud? in the matter. Mr. I'isher went on to say that the local bodies had proposed originally a road 100 feet wide with several tracks and a cycle track down the centre. ?!''• Has that been done? t f,' s ' ler s ? il J that it had not, but the original proposal ; had nevertheless been greatlv extended, at the request of the local bodies. He believed that it was an extravagant and costly work, but he was at the same time bound to confess that the local bodies had themselves run their he-ads into this noose. When .the Bill of 1911 went through," the_ isember for Hutt, who was Mayor, of Wellington at the time, mado no effort to find out how much had been spent on behalf of the local bodies. Mr. A\ '.lford, however, was one of those who had attended !a secret conference of Mayors, about which he had not told the House anything. "I went to the City Council," said Mr. Fisher, "and asked what its attitude was rjiout this Bill. I was told; 'We can't tell you.' I said: 'Why?' 'and was told: 'Because llr. Wilford is Mayor, and wo can't give vou anv information.' Mr. Wilford was" not in the House when the Bill came up in 1911, but it was recorded in Hansard that he wrote to a member stating that he did riot oppose its parage." Mr. Fisher continued that lie had failed to get information in 1911 either /rom the then Minister or from the local bodies as to what the road would cost the latter. It was the business of the member for Hutt, in his absence from the House, to have communicated with the other members concerned.

' Mr. AVilford: I would be very sorry to be iulviseil by you. Mr. Fisher: I daresay the hon. member would be sorry to bo advised by mo, but on that occasion he was not advised by anybody! Mr. Wilford had told the people of the Hutt that he was responsible for the road, and now lie was trying to nut the cost on to somebody else. Mr. Wilford: Hot air! Mr. Fisher said that conference after conference of tlio local bodies had asked for more. Ultimately they found that they had asked for a very extravagant and very extensive ivork. A Baraain Denied. The Hon. J. A. Millar (late Minister for Railways) said that the road had been made entirely at the request of the local bodies, and in the main according to their specifications. The local bodies had known perfectly well what they were soius into, and if the Eailway Department had not reduced their original specifications, the cost of the road would have been even greater than it was. No local body in the country could have done the work any cheaper. Full data regarding the detail cost of the work could be obtained from the Railway Department.

Mr. Fisher: Did the local bodies ever make any agreement as to tho total cost? Jlr. Millar: No. There was 110 agreement at all. Parliament would be very unwise to allow these local bodies to evade 'their just responsibilities to the State. "A Horrible Shock," Dr. A. IC. Newman (Wellington South) Said that it liad corue as a horrible shock to the council and officials of the city of Wellington to find that it was saddled with so heavy a contribution to tho cost of tho Hutt Road. He disputed the statement of the Minister that the local bodies ivere liable for the cost of removing slips. They had not yet taken over the read, and were not liable. The Minister in Reply, v The Hon. W. H. Herries saiil that lie was much obliged to his predecessor for stating, the case for tho Bailway Department. It was well-known that the local bodies had asked the Government to undertake the construction of this road as a national work. He was not going into the old vexed question of estimated and actual cost. As a private member, ho had opposed this expenditure in the town, but with other country members he was overborne. He went on to show, by quoting the decisions of conferences of the local authorities, that the Railway Department had only carried out their wishes.'

Mr. Wilford: Wo don't dispute that; it's the cost. Mr. Herries said tliat the local authorities apparently did not want to pay anything. The slips, he said, would have to be charged as part of the cost of construction of the road. He was quite prepared to lay the cost of the road on the table of the IJouse. They had only charged the bare cost of the road. They had given the Wellington local bodies the best road in Australasia, and in fairness to the rest of the Dominion, the Wellington district people must pay for it. Mr. Wilford said that it was true that a secret conclave of district mayors had been held, but the Hon. F. 51. B. Fisher had put it the wrong way round. The object of the mayors had been to arrive at the best method of defending themselves in regard to the claim of the Government. Having decided upon a method of defending themselves, they preferred to keep it secret, and the Government would learn about it when they first made a claim in the matter upon any local body. The report was laid on the table.