RIVERS COMMISSION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4304, 15 August 1921, Page 1

RIVERS COMMISSION.

, The Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers Commission, consisting of Messrs H. J. H. Blow (chairman), W. S. Shortt, and G. Buchanan, resumed its sittings in the Paeroa Courthouse Dawson Donaldson, Mayor, of Waihi for the past six years, said he had a very extended knowledge of bprougn matters since 1901. Then Waihi w.as "a wind-swept and barren waste,” with a population of about 3000. The borough was constituted in 1902. He described civic enterprise and the difficulty in obtaining loans. The only loan money borrowed was for water supply. The total rate for this year was 4s 9d in the £, made up of general rate Is 6d., water Is, sanitary Is 3d, and hospital ✓ Is. A general) rate of 6d would only produce about £7OO. Prior to this year the total- rate was 2s 8d in the £. Of that 6d was general rate, water 6d, sanitary lOd, and hospital lOd. The increase this year was necessary owing to gold revenue decreasing by about £3OOO, and the gasworks had shown -a considerable loss. Something drastic was necessary. There were about 1000 ratepayers in *he borough. Only 16 paid oyer £IOO per annum, and ,461 paid £lO. or 'less per annum. Most of- the latter held vacant or practically vacant sections. The last valuation was madeUn 1908 —“our prosperous times.” The valuation had decreased considerably since then, but the Government had no reduced the valuation. Waihi’s population was largely wprking class, de- • pendent upon’ the mining industry. This industry was not a healthy occupation. The gold duty was the fairest method of providing a local authority with revenue in a mining area. Thames Borough and Ohinemuri County, had, in their day, received considerable revenue from the duty imposed on bullion. Te Aroha Borough, in a lesser degree, had also . profited. Waihi was in similar state, but all had long since lost this means of<evenue. In no one year had £SO JO been provided by the mining companies and the Waihi Borough. £5009 was the limit-provided under Mr ‘ Johnstone here stated that though over £150,000 (the estimated cost of the improvement works)‘had been expended the work was uncompleted, the conlnbuting bodies he represented were being a-sked to pay over £I2OO as interest on a further £150,000. The chairman said he believed the

mining companies were only paying their own quota, and the Government was at present paying the quota 'that had been allocated to the agricultural! lands. The Government may yet require the latter to pay up. Legislation so far limits the annual contribution to £IO,OOO, of which the Government pays one-six'th. Apparently no provision had been made for payment of interest and sinking fund on the second £150,000. The present Commission wanted the whole matter cleared up, so that it could advise the Government as to the best methods for the future. They would hear further argument on this point later on. Continuing, the witness said the net amount of gold duty Waihi received last' year was £5300. Mining was only being carried on now in Waihi Borough; other mining operations had ceased.. Waihi would have no objection to being included within a rating area, if the area could be rated on a differential basis. If it was fair ,to contribute £SOOO out of £23,000 received, it was manifestly unfair to have to contribute £SOOO out of its present revenue of £5300. Many of the culverts in the borougn would have to be renewed, now and in the near future. It would cost about £3OOO per mile for road renewal. The present bank , limit for overdraft was £6OOO, but special provision was made for an extension £700'0.. The borough owed at present about £18,500. Waihi had "no chance at all” under present circumstances to reduce its liabilities. Waihi borough "were creatures of circumstane- i es.” it was possible a receiver may be put in to obtain settlement of incurred. If the mining industry continues to languish, .Waihi has no hope of carrying on. Waihi will be “absolutely up against it.” If the Government .will refund what we have paid unjustly we wil/1 be able to meet our obligations. The Chairman : I' had no idea you had got off so cheaply. The borough paid £17,000 in eleven years, and this contribution is surprisingly small 1 thought you were actually ' paying £SOOO annum. How will your banker view the position ? Witness : I think he will be inclined .to be severe with us, for he will want his money. Mr Johnstone: Re the\ Reference j Board ; what is its function ? Witness: To worry the Public 1 Works' Department h Qgfr two of the 25' bodies represented on the Reference Board contributed to the improvement scheme —Waihi Borougn

and the mining companies. One of the principal opponents on .the Board w'tis Mr Wynyard, representing the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. He feared the Waitekauri and Waihi Farmers’ Unions had not been invited to participate in the Reference Board’s deliberations. When Mr Wynyard was absent, witness’ chief adversary in debate was Mr Buchanan. Mr Wynyard was a commercial .gentleman from Auckland.' Witness went on to give some amusing views on the Reference Board’s deliberations and .constitution. Continuing, Mr Donaldson said he believed Mr Wynyard was also greatly interested in some Awaiti land — hence his attendence at Reference Board meetings while ostensibly representing the Auckland Chamber ot Commerce. Waihi Borough had in the past twelve years expended £72,623 on various public works. Hospital expenditure in that period was £IB,OOO. Other items brought the total to £135,'565-—which was practically equal to the amount received for gold duty. He viewed the rivers improvement scheme as much similar to a harbour board scheme, and the form and basis of rating should be somewhat similar. Waihi would have no objection to inclusion. Counsel showed a list of 141 residence sites .that had been struck off the roll, and gazetted as now open for fresh registration. To the Chairman : Witness said the basis of contribution by all local bodies to,the proposed new improvement scheme should be on .the rate* .able value, or perhaps by a combination of the rateable value with dui xegard to benefits received. That wai a matter for experts to determine. To Mr Porritt: At Ref.erenc9 Board meetings he found every representative “pushing his own barrow.” There was not much unanimity except in urging upon .the Public Works Department the urgent need for more expedition. He believed Mr Wynyard was always willing to have his own lands rated for improvement. Mr Wynyard was probably responsible for a good deal pf the work being done in the Hauraki Plains area. Farmers who had alleged that their land ‘ was ruined by the 1910 flood later objected to the stopbanks being erected seven chains back from the river. They .wanted the, stop-banks placed only a chain and a-haif back, and this was eventually decided upon on condition, that the farmers indemnified the Government against “damage to their allegedly worthless

land.” The Reference Board was instrumental in having 'the 19.19 Com- < mission set up. The sole object of < the Reference Board seemed to be to < spend the £150,000 as soon as pos- • sible without cost to themselves. ' “That was our funeral,” commented witness. ,Mr Wynyard’s representation on .the Reference Board may have been chiefly in respect to navigation of the rivers. Waihi’s policy has always been to have as large an overdraft as possible. Waihi had ’ practically no city luxuries. He knew several 7 towns of the same size that had advantages over Waihi. The latter tow# had municipal enterprises —but none that a mining town should not strive l to provide for its inhabitants. To Mr G. Gilchrist: He could not deny that to date Waihi Borough hai received £250,000 in gold duty, .over £27,000 for goldfields revenue, and about £14,000 as subsidies on rates. The figures quoted by counsel may be correct. The bank overdraft limit at present is £7500. 'IMy policy has been to get as much money as I can get, but it is hardly correct to assume from that that I would spend as little ae possible.” He did not agree with the 1910 Commission’s figures, which were based on false premises. In his opinion the river was useful to the mining companies as sludge channel, but he could not express an opinion as to whether it is essential. Farming is a very .trifling industry at W’aihi, by comparison with mining. The rate of 4s 9d in the $ was only imposed this current year ; the increase was not in anticipation of the Commission’s inquiry. To Mr Clendon: He felt that the person or body which caused the damage in the river should contribute to repairing the damage, but the person who lived upon the mining companies who caused any damage were n,ot> more, entitled to contribute to the improvement scheme'than were the farmers whose lands were pr’j*tected and improved. It would ne fairer to release Waihi and the goldmining companies from all Utility, as their contribution to date*, was more than sufficient to buy all the land affected by the floods. The 1910 Commission had assumed that Waihi was in for a period) of prolonged prosperity ; hence .their decision. But the Commisson’s assumption had proved utterly wrong. Every residence in Waihi is declining in value, while in all other places residences appreciate in value for several years. Waihi was singular in .that respect, as it

was dependent entirely uppn gold mining, which was declining. Waihi s agricultural -prospects are 'not great for the immediate future. To rate the mines in the borough would he “to apply the strangle-hold.” To Mr Richmond: It seemed unfair for Waihi to be asked to make good an omission of th.e Government. He knew of no mining at Te Arpha. There was not a shovelful of mining done at Te Aroha.- A Te Aroha house is just as valuable as one at Thames or in Auckland. I.t certainly was very much mere valuable than a • house at Waihi. It was absurd to expect a miner at Waihi to contribute to the cost of making a drain at Tir.jhia.

To Mr Hanna : He would lik.e to be convinced that Waihi had benefited to the extent of £lOO,OOO as a result of the river communication.. If • freight from Auckland to Paeroa by boat and on to Waihi by rail averaged 17s per ton, he would be surprised tp learn that railage per tort fom Auckland to Waihi was 68s 6d, also that imports to Waihi per annum totalled 10,000 .tons-. He could not comment on Paeroa’s position or prospects, and did not know that Paeroa’s total revenu,e for last year was a little over £3OOO, as against Waihi’s • £22,000. The two places .were very different. ' Because Paeioa- existed on £3OOO a year it did not follow that Waihi could manage on much less than £22,000. The 271 houses removed from Waihi in recent years would average an annual value of £35 to £4O. Valuations had invariably been kept on the high side, sp that a low rate could be struck. Gold-mining v;as one of the last .things, in the world a man would ,/t<?ke on from choice. Some t»CQple had, out of their hard earnings from mining, gone into the farming business. Re-examined by Mr Johnstone : He quite agreed with Mr Hazard as regards the farming industry near Waihi. To Commissioner < Buchanan : All borough services were profitable. Last year there was a slight loss on the water and 'sanitary services. PossibUy Waihi Borough had erred in h&i, increasing rates three or four years ago, to ensure a profit on each department of borough enterprise.. He believed a Waihi Plains farmer had sold out for £3O per acre. That man was a scientific farmer, who had spent about £2OOO on improving his farm, and got about £3OOO for it. Witness was convinced the 1910 Commission had made grpss mistakes in its findings. Evidence given as to probable damage had not been borne out in actual fact. The chairman remarked that, ne would like reports of Waihi borough enterprises; It seemed that ;the hospital could be made to pay a better Mr Blow'stated that, he had received information from Wellington to the effect that expenditure on rivers improvement to March 31 last was actually £190,249. Witness’ evidence 1 occupied several --hours, for he generally covered and confirmed the evidence given by pre- ' vious witnesses, notably Messrs Ritchie and Brown.

THURSDAY’S PROCEEDINGS. The chairman (Commissioner Blow) intimated prior to the proceedings commencing, on Thursday morning that if the session was -not completed by Wednesday an adjournment would have to be made, as Commissioner Shortt had other engagements to attend to.

The discussion which followed showed that it would be quite impossible to conclude by Wednesday. Mr Gilchrist stated that the chairman of. the Matamata Town Board and Matamata Council wished to be heard; this, and Te - Aroha evidence, couH be more conveniently; heard at Te Aroha,

The chairman said it would suit the commissioners if the'sitting was adjourned from next Wednesday evening until the beginning of September. The matter was xjpt settled at this stage, nor the matter of a sitting at Te Aroha."

DAIRY COMPANY SECRETARY. . William Henry Blakeway, f local secretary of the N.Z, Dairy Co., Ltd., and previously iff the Thames Valley Co-operative Dairying Co., Ltd-, (amalgamated), gave detailed evidence as ,10 the dair.v factories existing in the district, and the dates of their erection. The tonnage produced at the Paeroa factory in 1910 was 499 tons, and in 1921, 866 tons.. The area from which Paeroa factory got its cream had been de- ’ creased by the addition of branch .factories. The Ne.therton factory last year produced 305 tons of cheese, Turua (Huirau Road) 234 tons, Hikutaia 347, Matatoki 290, Shelly Beach 266, Wharppoa 233. The butter factories at Kopu and Ngatea had produced 756 /tons, Waitoa 501 tons of cheese, Ngarua 301, Lower Yaitoa .468. To Mr Clfendon: The factories on the west of the Piako River were in an- area not strictly of this -district, no whs Matatoki. Half of the cheese came from the lower half of the Plains, and a third of the butter from the Ngatea factory. Commissioner Buchanan : Have you known of a diminution of supply from the Ngatea and Huirau Road factories through floods ? —No. Has there been. diminution from Netherton and Paeroa through floods? —Yes.

The prices of dairy produce wouhi recede within the next few years, witness continued ; even though this year was the "peak year’’ of dairy produce prices, there had been man? requests for financial assistance ’, evidently the banks expected a fall in prices. The Imperial Government had lost thousands of pounds over purchasing butter at 2s 6d per lb, and it was questionable whether 2s 6d would be reached again. Mr .Johnstone : What did the farmers want a free market for. To get higher prices ? —Yes. From milk containing lib of but-ter-fat 2.681 b o F cheese were made ; IOJb of milk would make 11b . of

cheese ; 11b ofbutten-fafc made 1 l-51b of butter.

MR. RICHMOND’S ADDRESS. Mr H. P. Richmond (mining companies) delivered liis .opening address at this stage. The Commission had tp decide whether an injustice was done in 1910, and if so, what was the remedy. It was quite apparent that injustice was done to the mining interests by the fixing of an inelastic and artificial contribution having no relation to the power to pay or the benefits received,. The mining industry was not obliged to find a scapegoat ; if the 1910 Commission put an unjust burden on Waihi, that point should be considered by itself ; who was to bear the burden was another matter. The mining interest had borne almost the ’total burden and had had absolutely no say in the expenditure. The only - member who derived profits was the farming community, and it had not paid a penny, unless through gen,er al taxation. What sort of a partnership was it ? It was difficult to get any conceivable basis of logic whereon the mining., interests should pay for reclamation of land on the Hauraki Plains. Thesegigantic stop-banks could not be considered as being 'anything else than land reclamation. Mining silt created an infinitesimal portion of rhe damage. “MOST APPALLING INJUSTICE. 1 ’ -

To saddle a dying industry with thousands of pounds worth of .expenditure on works that had no relati n to mining whatever was a most appalling injustice, .which he could hard’y . think that Parliament or the Commission would tolerate.. The works hid no. more relation to mining than it had'to canals on Mars-. Commissioner Blow: Ihe works were due to the silting of the Ohinemuri River, but had widened, out. Mr Richmond : Had there been no mining, exactly the teame expenditure would have had to be undertaken, otherwise the Hauraki Plains could not have been developed. The Ohinemuri River was at no time capable of holding more than a, fraction of the flood waters that came down. The recor.ds -from 1894 shewed, this conclusively. The 1910 flood -was, due to a cloud-burst, and threw a'lot of ancient sands up. The river would have flooded in 1910, mining or ' o mining; why, therefore, should the mining be. loaded, with’ nearly the whole of the burden for these great mountainous stop-banks that the Paerpa people, waxing fat from “milking the golden cow” [getting gold revenue for public works], to,, drive- over in carriages? A Voice: In motor-bars.

Mr Richmond : As for these little paddocks we were taken to see, we could have bought the whole lot in 1910 for' less than it would cost the Commission to sit* These paddocks, or the damage they have suffered, is quite infinitesimal by comparison with the great appreciation of lowlying lands. The 1910 flood was an interesting study in human psychology. The poor farmers were then-glia.l to sell their pounds of butter to the residents of Waihi. These farmers saw an apparently endless stream of gold issuing from the bowels of the earth. They gave evidence accordingly. and the Commission made an emotional award/ But, 16! the scene had changed. Those farming lands were hip-deep in grass, and the residents of the Hauraki Plains were the most envied farming community in the world ; Hauraki Plains were of proverbial /richness, with assured prosperity- ahead. (Still sitting.)