HUTT ROAD COST.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1796, 8 July 1913, Page 6

HUTT ROAD COST.

LOCAL BODIES' BURDEN-

SOME PROTESTS,

AGAINST COMMISSIONER'S FINDINGS.

Protests against t'ho heavy, impost to put upon local authorities in and around Wellington in consequence of tho apportionment of the cost of the construction of the Hutt Road wero voiced hy a deputation which waited upon tlio Minister for' Railways (tho Hon. W. H. Herries) yesterday. The deputation was introduced by Dr. A. K. Newman, M.P., and otlier members of the House present were the Hon. F. M. B. Fisher, Mr. T. M. Wilford, Mr. W. H. D. Bell, and Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh. The deputation comprised the Mayors of the city and the surrounding boroughs, members of tho City Council, the chairmen of the Hutt and Makara counties, and tho Upper Hutt Town Board. Br. Newman said that'when this matter was entered into there was no binding agreement. The local bodies had tried unsuccessfully from timo to time to get information ns to the liability they were incurring. When they eventually ascertained that thev were liable for a sum ,of ,£IOO,OOO it was a terrible shock to 4heni. Mr. W. H. D. Bell. M.P., said that although the local bodies might havo approached the Government to do more than was originally intended, there was no evidence that what the local bodie9 askfltl for was actually carried out. _ It might be that, the road made was wider tli an was intended under the ,£IOO,OOO estimate. and if the Railway Department could show that the road as originally planned could have been carried out at the original estimate there would probably be something in the argument that the local bodies should bear some part of the increased cost. He contended, however, that the increased cost of the road was not so much due to tho increased size of the road as to the extravagant method's followed in carrying it out.

No Definite Contract. 1 Mr. ,T. r. Luke (Mayor of Wellington) outlined the history of the work. Tho local bodies were in the position, he said, that there had never been a definite contract between the Government and the local bodies intei'ested in the road. They did not wish' to disclaim their just. liabilities, but contended that the thing should be regarded as a business proposition and not solely from the point of view of the Railway Department. He suggested that the local bodies should only be required to pay fifty per cent, of the, oost'of the road. Such a decision would be popular not only in the. local district, but in the country, and lie believed that it would meet with .the_ approval of tho House. If the Minister insisted' upon tho local bodies mooting the full demand it would tie up the progress of the district and impose very serious burdens. Heavy Load for Petone. Mr. J. 'W. M'Ewan (Mayor of Petone) said that Petone would be very hard hit by being required to pay nearly one-half the amount required of the oity. The population of the borough was about onetenth of that of the city, and the valuation about one-seventeenth. In addition to i'his possible demand the borough would have to meet a levy of .£9OO for hospital and charitable aid, a fire hoard levy of ■£450, and other levies, which seemed to be steadily growing. Add to this the ,£SOO or 59 annually which tho borough would have to pay for the upkeep of tho road, and it would appear that the borough would have to pay .£3OOO before they could expend any rates within the borough. And the rates within the borough were nearly as high now as the law allowed. He complained that the, Government, by refusing to- pay rates on lands held in the borough, was robbing tho other ratepayers of the borough of ,£728 a year, If the demand in Tespect of the Hutt Road Wero enforced the Government would have to put a receiver in, owing to the precarious state of the finances of the borough, or the borough must bo allowed to erect a tollgate on the ICoro ICoro Bridge. He pointed out further that tho. residents of the borough weie mostly Workers, striving to pay off their mortgages in order to acquire homes. When the matter had been first brought up, the borough had supposed that the Government would make a grant for the road as they didl in other districts. He protested against the commissioner's assessment against Petone of 18 per cent.

Case for Lower Hutt. Mr. E. P. Bnnny (Mayor' of Lower Hutt) said that unless, the Government reduced the amount charged to H-utt the borough would have to pay ,£7OO a year for interest and sinking fund, and iIWO for upkeep. Added to this there were the increasing hospital levies. He urged that the Minister should make some sort of independent investigation into the affairs of these local authorities and, if this were made, he was, sure the Minister would find that the local bodies' resources were not such as to stand the strain, of these extra levies, and . have anything left for local requirements. Mr. Bunny argued that the bad management in the construction of the road had greatly added to the cost, and this extra expenditure the local bodies should not be required to m««t, seeing that they had no share in the control of the construction works. Former Utterances Recalled. Mr. T. M. Wilford contended that. it was fair that the Government should vote a sum of money towards tho cost or upkeep of a main arterial road. Speaking in the House in 1911, he said, Mr. Massey had urged the then Minister for Public Works to make a grant in aid of the Great South Road, running south from Auckland, because it was a nmin arterial road. ■The same argument would apply to the Hutt Road, which was the main road to Wanganui and Napier, and to places inMr. Wilford went on to contend that the local bodies had been led to believe originally that the road and railway would cost ,£IOO,OOO, and that the Government was bound to Tepair tho wrong dona by the former misrepresentation or by the inefficient estimate of the engineers. Speaking in the House on September 1, 1911, he continued, Mr. Massey had stated that Parliament and tho local authorities were told originally that the road and railway work would cost £100,000. He also quoted speeches made by Messrs. Herdman and Hcrries when the Hutt Bill of 1911 was passed. Tho proper way to put matters right, Mr. Will'ord urged, was, in accordance with Mr. Massey V suggestion, to mako a grant. As to the cycle-track, Mr. Wilford said that ho,was informed that it was the cheapest part of the road, and that it was for that reason that the cycle-track had been cut up for the reception of pipes, in preference to another part of tho road. Concluding, Mr. Wilford said that Mr. Fisher had spoken in the House of a secret conclave of mayors held at Wellington. Most of those who had attended were present. The object of tho meeting was to arrive at an understanding as to the position they should take up in defending themselves as to their liabilities under the Statutes. Tho meeting was of a purely defensive character, and there was nothing sinister about it. . .' In Fear of Bankruptcy. Mr. ,W. Galloway . (chairman of the Hutt County Council) said that if the county' were required to pay tho .£4OO annually demanded for tho road, tho county would have to neglect a great part of the 400 miles 1 of back-country roads in the county area. Mr. F. Holdsworth (Mayor of Onslow) took exception to the proposal that the local bodies should be charged with tho cost of removing the recent slip, and all slips which were certain to occur in the future. He suggested that payment should be arranged for by the local authorities being given the money by tho Government at the same rate of interest as the Government had to pay for it. Mr. M. F. Luckie presented the case for Makara Comity, which, ho said, was heavily loaded for a road whicli was of very little service to it. . If tho county had to pay tho amount assessed against them, it would bo reduced to bankruptcy, and would be quite unable to maintain the roads within its boundaries. Mr. J. P. Luke threw out a suggestion to tho Minister that tho old Hutt Road .Maintenance Board should bo revived,

and that with the engineers of the contributing local authorities it might make an estimate of what tho road should have cost' to make if the construction methods had been such as tho local bodies themselves would have employed. If this wero done, he thought it would save .1 great deal of the feeling against the Government for requiring payment on what was thought to be an uuneccssarily high cost.

A Question Not Answered. The Hon. P. M. B. Fisher said that Section 7 of the Act of 1903 provided that tho cost of forming and constructing the road should ba borno by the local authorities. The Act also provided for the apportionment of the cost by a commissioner, and authorised the Minister to demand, in writing from the several local bodies, the proportion for which each was liable. Tho Act of 1903 provided for a work costing .£IOO,OOO, that of 1805 provided for the expenditure of another and 'the Act of 1907 for the expenditure of still another <CIOO,OOO. The local bodies knew that tliey were liable for a proportion of the cost. He would like to ask tho Mayors w.hat action tliey took to ascertain their liability undo? tho increased expenditure ? No answer was made. Mr. Fisher said that Petone had formerly undertaken to pay an equal share with Wellington, 7-24ths of the costof the read. Mr. MTJwan: We agreed to nothing! That was the recommendation) of Mr. Hazelden. WlO were forced into it. Mr. Holdaworth said that the road to which' this apportionment had applied hnd been covered up by the new Hutt Road. The former road had gone only ns far as Onslow. What Was the Understanding? Mr. W. H. P. Barber said that it was clearly understood when the 1903 Bill was submitted that tho cost of the road was to be .£IOO.OOO. and that a certain Income was to be derived from the rale of'the .additional land to be reclaimed. He.al.so claimed that it was undjerstood that at leas'' some of the cost of the road was to to borne by the Government, in return for which concession the Government reserved to itself the protection that no. local authority should run any form of mechanical traction .along the road in competition, with, the railway. It was certainly unfair for the Government to require the local bodies to pay the wliofo cost, w.lien these privileges they would ot.herwi.se have had were withhe'd from the*". Mr. R. H. Webb ' (ohairman of the Upper Hutt Town Board) said'that if his board were called upon to pay tho amount allocated to it, not only would it be unable to spend any, money on new works in the town, but it would have to leave undone absolutely necessary maintenance works. ; ' THE MINISTER IN REPLY. CABINET'-TO DECIDE. Tho Minister, in replying, said that practically his attention had been called to two questions: First of-all, to take the smaller one, although they had not actually asked for its revision, lie could 'see that there was some dissatisfaction with the actual apportionment of Commissioner Short. Some peonlo thought that somo of the apportionments were too large nr too small. He conld not legally interfere with Commissioner Short's apportionment. Unless the law were alterejl, all that he could do was to gazette the anportionment. Tho .second nuestion was whether the Government ought to reduce the amount that they were entitled, under tlie Act. to recover from the local authorities. He did not want to go into ancient history, but whatever the original position, as time went on, it must have become apparent, to the local ltodies concerned that their apportionment would bo verv much Ijitoct thin thev were led to believe it would be under the Act of 1903, and that they must be prepared to nay. their share of a much larger amount than, the original ,£IOO,OOO. Ho did not think It had come as a surorise to them. Tho Government now had to decide whether or not it should reduce the amount that i t had a Tiirht to demand from the local bv'r'es. Th. { « was a matter that only Cabinet could decide, and ho would bo very glad to bring their arguments, as 'far'or hn could, before hla'colleagues. and see wheittier they tliourrht it right that t.l» rest of the Dominion should nay a portion towards 'the cost of what he admitted was a main arterial road. He could ouite seo that, from the monetary point of view, it' would oripple some of the looal bodies to meet the demand. But they h"d to look at the larger question as to whether it was richt that, the rest of tho Dominion should pay a portion of the cost of this road. ■ This it would be the duty of Cabinet to consider, and he would put' it before Cabinet, at its next meeting. Dr. Newman said many years ago. as member for tho Hutt he had obtained an estimate of the cost of straightening the Hutt line. The Government engineers then said ,£250,01)0 to .£300,0H0. He could not understand, how tho estimate had been reduced to ,£IOO,OOO. Dr. Newman and Mr. TaiV®> thanked the' Minister for receiving the deputation, and its members withdrew.