RIVER BOARDS BILL.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1885, 20 October 1913, Page 8

RIVER BOARDS BILL.

PROTEST BY MAYOR OF lIUTT. Mr. E. P. Bunny, Mayor of Lower Jlutt, points out what ho considers to o a wrong principle in tho Rivers Boards' Amendment Bill, now before Parliament. Not only will it affect tho Hutt, but ho maintains that, if tho amendment is carried in its present form, tho effect will' bo far-reaching. Tho provision which Mr. Bunny takes exception to is the new proposal of vesting a River Board with power to classify rateable property into four classes, viz.: — (a) Lands receiving or likely to receive immediate and direct benefit from the river works. (b) Lands receiving or likely to receive less direct benefit therefrom. (c) Lands receiving or likely to re- ( ccivo only an indirect benefit • therefrom; (d) All other lands. Mr. Bunny protests against the exemption provided in Sub-section D (all other lands), maintaing that' all lands benefit from river works in a River Board district. Even tho value of hill lands (not likely ever to be actually interfered with by the action of a river) benefit iu value indirectly from tho works that aro protecting lands below. On this subject Mr. Bunny has addressed the following letter to the member for Hutt:— "I have read this Bill and do i>C>t think, there is anything to object to in Clause 2, as tho Amendment Act of 1910 already provides for a petition signed by not less than one-fourth in number of the ratepayer and conseouently there is no alteration in .the law as far as this is concerned. Clause G affects a radical change as it takes away the power from River Boards .to say whether tho rates shall be levied on •a uniform scale or. on a graduated scale a3 provided by Section 88 of the principal Act of 1908. I know of no reason why the board should' lose this power of discriminating. It appears to bo quite as great an evil as the practice so'widely condemned of leaving important matters to be determined by an Order-in-Council. There is no reason why the River Boards in any particular district should not be the best judges as to whether tho rates should not be on a uniform or graduated scale. The only possible' objection is that representatives on the board might consist qf members, all of whom are paying on the highest rated area, and might therefore be tempted to'alter the system of rat> ing to a uniform one, byt tho answer to'that is that un\ess the ratepayers wero satisfied'as to the system adopted, it would be impossible for tho board to raise any money which involves obtaining tho sanction of tho majority of tho ratepayers. The classification in Clause 6 (2) appears to me to bo objectionable. It really relieves from, liability to rate a considerable number of persons who are now rated under Section 93, Section 3. as owning or occupying lands indirectly liable to damage. Clause 6 (2) D either has tliat effect or is meaningless, and in either case should be struck out."