WANGANUI HARBOUR.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1874, 7 October 1913, Page 4

WANGANUI HARBOUR.

THE RATING AREA. DISPUTE OYER BOUNDARIES. Dispute rather than debate describes the proceedings when ; tho Wanganui Harbour District and Empowering Bill, in charge of Mr. W. A. Veitch, was under consideration. Tho bono., of contention was an area in tho Waitotara district which had not been included either in tho Wanganui Harbour rating area or in that ot tho Patea Harbour Board, but lay between the two districts as a debatable area. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Egmont) said that since tho second reading of the Bill he had looked, into tho question of the proposed boundaries, and it seemed that certain areas of land.which would be benefited by tho operation of the Bill had been wrongfully excluded. Tho southern boundary did not extend moro than ten miles south of tho Wanganui River, whilst on the northern side thero was a very valuable pieco of, country which was not included in either tho Wanganui or tho Patea rating areas. In one case an area of 18,500 acres had been excluded. At the proper timo he would move that this' area should bo included in the Bill. Mr. H. J. H. Okey (Taranaki) said that it would shorten the discussion if the member in charge of the Bill would state whether ho was in favour of amending the,boundaries. No doubt it was vory unfair that fivo or six miles of country, between Wanganui and Patea, should bo left out of any rating area. No Favouritism. Sir Joseph Ward (Awarua) said that he had received numerous communications' which showed that thero was a very strong feeling against tho proposed boundaries as contained in the Bill. Ho was in favour of tho object of the Bill, but if thero was going to bo any favouritism ho would oppose tho measuro. It was freely stated that a system of favouritism was being attempted. If certain farmers who would bo benefited by tho Bill were to bo excluded, it would bo very unfair to farmers who wore included. Ho believed that tho Wanganui Harbour would bo one of tho most important harbours in the Dominion, but all thoso who would bo benefited should bo included in tho i rating area. > The Natural Outlet. ' Mr. G. V. Pearco (Patea) said that strong oppononts of the Bill had sent to mombers ■ of tho Houso showing incorrectly tho northern boundary of tho proposed district. It had beon suggested that a property owned by himself in the, Waitotara district should havo been included in tho Wa- » nganui Harbour district, but it had i been fully , established that tlio district in which his property was situate found ■ a natural outlet in Patea Harbour. I Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) : said that tho promoters of the Bill had 1 agreed to the exclusion of tho Waito- > tara area mentioned from tho Wanga- ' nili district on tho understanding that special legislation should be brought in • to includo it in tho Patea Harbour district. At present the area was in neither harbour district. Sir Joseph • Ward: That is exactly 1 what peoplo are complaining about. An Honourable Understanding. Mr. Veitch said that an honourable understanding had, been arrived at by 1 tho Patea and Wanganui districts, and r he proposed to stand or fall by it. In t this way no injustice would be done to 3 anyone, becauso no rate would be a struck by the Wanganui Harbour Board 3 boforo tho end of next session. Tho chairmen of the Patea and Wanganui - Harbour Boards had agreed that a local Bill should bo promoted next year a to include tho Waitotara land in tho

Patea Harbour district. Ho considered that tho Patea and Wanganui Harbour Bills now boforo tho House could both bo passed tliis year. In nn.v caso f a great injustice would bo (lone to Wanganui if tho Wanganui Bill woro held up this year. Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata) said that he supported tho Bill, but objected to the largo area of 18,000 acres in tho Waitotara district being excluded. The Wrong Area. The Hon. W. Fraser said that ho could not understand tho attitude of hoiTourablo members who wished to include tlie area in dispute in tho wrong rating district rather than leavo them out in tho meantime. Tho area should be. included in tho Patea district. Mr. Harris: There are two Bills, and they are not in either, ■ that is tho troublo. Mr. Fraser: And you would includo them in the wrong one rather than leavo them outP Ho contended that an injustico would bo done to tho Waitotara district, and also to tho Patoa Harbour district if tho debatable area wero included iti the Wanganui Harbour district. Ho supported tho position taken by tho member in charge of the Bill. Mr. Pearoe's Property. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh said that the dispute in regard to \the Waitotara area should' be cleared up beforo the Houso legislated on the subject. It was reported about tho House that tho chairman of the Local Bills Committee (Mr. Pearce) and his brother owned property valued at £37,000 in tho excluded area. Mr. Pearce said that ho had the Government valuation in his pocket. Mr. Hindmarsh said that lie had mado tho statement openly, and incited the member for Patea to reply. Mr. Pcarco said that the statement mado b.v the member for Wellington South showed, that absolute untruths had been spread through the House. He hold tho Government valuation of his Waitotara property in his hand. Much of tho 12,000 acres consisted of barron sand-hills. The unimproved . value of tho property was £11,500 and tlio total value was £16,000. Mr. M'Callum: Ho said y.ou and your brother. Mr. Pearce: Ho stated my property. I don't know what my brother's valuation is. Ho continued that the Waitotara area was thirty miles away from the harbour, but land eight miles away from the harbour had been excluded. Ho had .stated that he had no objection whatever to going into tho Patea area. Mr. Short's commission had said that tho area belonged to the Patea Harbour district, Thero was a preferential dues clause in the Bill,,and this district could be provided for in that way, even if it wero not put into either district. Even the men who had spread incorrcot yarns through the country, which they had to re tract in tho newspapers, had said that this area should go to Patea. Absolute nutruths had been spread with the liopo of killing tho Bill. One statement which had been circulated was that tho area excluded consisted of 18,000 acres, but in fact it consisted of 100,000 acres. ' , > Mr. Anderson: Why was it not, put into Patea? \ Mr. Pcarco: I have no objection at all to going into Patoa. As a fact, ho continued, he had raised no objection to going into the Wanganui district. A petition had come before tho Local Bills Committeo to strike out this area, and no evidenoo had been offered in opposition. _ The committeo had therefore struck, it out. ■ Position of. Rangitikei. Mr. E. Newman (Rangitikei) said that the people of Itaagitikei had , objected to their lands being included in the Wanganui Harbour district, because they anticipated finding a natural port at Foxton when tho Sandon tramway was completed. Tho promoters of the Bill had agreed to exclude Rangitikei, and in view of that fact the people of tho district had called no ovidenco in support of their claim. It would be utterly unfair to talk about including Rangitikei now. Tho Hon. F. M. B. Fisher said that it would be a great pity to kill this local Bill because a comparatively small area had not been included in ono Bill or the- other. Thero was a Patoa Harbour Bill before the House, and when it came up for consideration tho area in disnuto could be included in tho schedule of,that Bill. Sir Joseph Ward said that this could not be doiio. The Prime Minister: Why not? Mr. Fisher said that if the honourable gentleman (Sir Joseph Ward) would look at bis Bill Book, ho would find that tho Local Bills Committeo had altered the areaproposed in the Patea Harbour Bill. Tlie House undoubtedly had it in it| power to include the area in dispute in tho Patea Harbour district. Mr. Hindmarsh: Suppose the member for Pafea withdraws his Bill? Mr. Fisher: By no possibility could the member for Patea withdraw his Bill. The Chairman's Ruling. Mr. Veitch asked the Chairman to rule on the question as to whether the Houso had power to include the area in dispute in the 'Patea Harbour District. The Chairman of Committees (Mr. Malcolm) ruled that tho Committee had the power to add to or deduct from tho rating area proposed in either of tho two Bills. Mr. Wilkinson again remarked upon the exclusion of land which was only, eight miles from the.' Wanganui rating area. Ho did not wish to opuoso the Bill, but it was nothing but his duty to call attention to such matters. It was very probable that in time it would bo possible to get good-sized boats right up to Wanganui, and the people in the area that it was proposed to excludo would be greatly benefited. Mr. Bradney (Auckland West), who supported tho Bill, said that ho thought that all land within fifty miles of Wanganui should be included in tho rating area. Sir Joseph Ward said that the effect of the Chairman's ruling waß that it was possible for ratepayers to be pushed into tho Patea rating area without any advertisement on tho subject being published. He was persuaded that the excluded area could not bo put into the Patea Bill, and that the proper thing would bo to put it into the Wanganui Bill. Mr. Massey: They have objected to that. Sir Joseph Ward: But it has been advertised. The Hon. W. Fraser said that tno land should bo left out of tho Wanganui aroa and afterwards put in tho Patea Bill. Sir J. Ward: But that cannot bo done. ' Powers of the House. Mr. Massey said that the House had tho power to include this land in • either district. Tho Bill should bo allowed to go through on tho understanding that tho land would bo included in tlio Patea Bill later on.- The momber for Patea had said that ho was agreeable to this. Various members: Ho had already said that'it can't be done this session. Mr. Massey: It can be done. Thero is no question about that. Mr. Pearce said that ho was quito willing that the land should go into the Patea schedulo, but ho was not certain that it could bo done this session. Ho could not answer for all tho settlers iii the area affected, but believed they would agrco to these lands being included in tho Patea district. Mr. Okey suggested that tho Bill should bo held over in order to see whether some arrangement could bo made to includo tho area in tho Patoa Bill this year. Mr. Veltoh Makes an Oflcr. Mr. Voitoh said that it was not sueroetod to Icaro the load out of botfl.

Bills. Tho presont proposed boundaries woro much moro equitable than those proposed last year. The Bill should bo allowed to go through. As for himself, if thcro was any feeling against him ho was prepared to stand aside at tho next election if it would aksist tho Bill. Mombers: No 1 No I A Charge Denied. • Mr. Pearce said) that tho opposition to the Bill was being maintained by two members of tho Now Plymouth Harbour Board, who desired to kill both Bills. Mr. Itussoll: Most unfair state-' mcnt. Mr. Wilkinson gave Mr. Poarce's statemont ft flat denial. Mr. Okey echoed tilie denial. Mr. Forbes (Hurunui) said that it was tflio duty of the member for Patea particularly, as ho was chairman of the Local Bills Committee, to have put tho mattor right when tho Bills camo before that committeo. Mr. Veitch said that ho had just had a conversation with the chairman of the Patea Harbour Board (who was in the Chamber]) and ho had stated that ho was quito willing to promote a new Bill at once to put tho area in question into the Patea rating area. Mr. Russell (Avon): There is no need for that. There is a Patea Harbour Bill already beforo tho House and tho schedulo can bo altored by putting this aroa in. More Suggestlone. Mr. Bell (Wellington Suburbs) suggested that both Bills should be held over until tho Local Bills Committee had had an opportunity of reporting as to what should bo dono with tho particular area in question. The Hon. F. M.'B. Fisher suggested that tho Bill should be put through Committeo now, but that the .third reading should be deferred until after tho Patea Bill had been sent back to the Local Bills Committeo in order to havo tho area included in its schedule. Sir Joseph Ward suggested that -the Prime Minister should givo an assuranco that tho land in question would bo •included in the Patea Bill. If that wero done the Wanganui Bill would go through without any difficulty. Prime Minister's Proposal. Tho Prime Minister-said that he was anxious to do anything possible or reasonable to remedy the deadlock that had unfortunately arisen because he felt that an injustice wa-s being dono, not only to the two members concerned, but to tlio two districts; He suggested that the Wanganui,Bill should be allowed to pass its Committeo stago that night and he would givo tho House an assurance that the Bill would be kept back until the House had had an opportunity of dealing with tho Patea Bill. It would then be for tho House to satisfy itself that tho right tiling had been done in regard to tho territory that had been kept out of both districts. To Sir Joseph Ward tho Primo Minister replied that if tho member for the district would movo to include tho area in the Patea Harbour rating area ho was quito prepared to support that proposal. Tho Houso would havo tho whole thing in its hands. Sir Joseph Ward and other members asked whether tho member for Patea would give tho Houso an assurance that, when the Patea Harbour Bill came up, ho would movo to include-tho disputed area in the Patea district. When Mr. Wilkinson pressed for a similar assurance, Mr. Pcarce said that he would support tho proposal if it woro made. At 11.55 p.m. hostilities were so far suspended that progress was made with tlio clauses of the Bill, but a hostile amendment to tho schedule of the Bill (relating to boundaries)- still loomed in prospect.' Plural Voting. Asked what ho proposed to do in regard to tho plural voting provision contained in Clause 8, Mr. Veitch said that, ho was prepared to accept, tho decision of the House. Mr. J. Robertson (Otaki) moved to strike .out tho plural voting sub-clause in favour of one providing that each ratepayer should excrciso ono vote. Tho amendment was carried by 27 votes to 20. Tho Primo Minister and tho Hon. Jas. Allen, who had boon absent when tho previous division _on plural voting was taken, voted against the amendment. Differential Duos. Some discussion took place upon the clause providing for differential dues, and Mr. E. Newman moved 'to insert a proviso that no differential dues should be imposed until tho moneys mentioned in the Act had been raised and expended. This proposal was negatived. . The last clause in tho Bill was passed at 0.47 a.m. Progress was then reported; and the House rose at 0.50 a.m.