Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4387, 8 March 1922, Page 1

Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers.

Striking Speech in Parliament. ' ■ » Mr Poland’s Slashing Criticism. Waste and Extravagance Alleged. Utter Neglect of Navigation.

The following is a full report of a striking speech made'in Parliament by Mr H. Poland (Ohinemuri) on the Waihou and Ohinemuri River's Improvement Act, the findings of the Commissions, and the effect of the Government’s attitude on the parties concerned: ALLOCATION OF COST.

Mr Poland (Ohinemuri): There is one clause in this Bill I want to deal with, and that is clause 23, which re-, lates to the imposition of additional interest and sinking fund charges in connection with the improvement works being carried out on the Waihou and Ohinemuri rivers. I take this my earliest opportunity of referring to the clause, because it has been anticipated by the presentation last Wednesday by the Minister of Public Works of the report of a Commission set up by the Government to investigate the question of the allocation of the cost of the Work. That report is a very valuable one, and was prepared by Mr Blow, the late Undersecretary of Public Works, Mr Shortt, also recently the Under-Secretary of that Department, and Mr G. Buchanan, representing the farmers. Before that Commission the Public Works Department gave evidence that it was going to cost £625,000 to complete the works.

The Right Hon. Mr Massey.: £625,000 from now ?

Mr Poland: No, altogether, the total cost. In 1910, when the first Commission sat in connection with this matter —also a first-class Commission—the expert engineers stated that the cost would not exceed £150,000, and they allocated what, in thexr opinion, was a. just division of the cost. They decided that the Governs ment should pay one-sixth, that the settlers should pay one-sixtn, the mining companies one-<sixth, and the gold duty received .from - mining threesixths, because the damage to the river wap decided to be mainly caused by the action of the mining corns panies in depositing silt in the river. The river was declared a sludge channel, and millions of tons of quartz tailings were deposited in it by the companies, which resulted in the destruction of thousands of acres of valuable land. THE COST PROHIBITIVE.

To give effect to that Commission’s report an Act was passed in 1910, and from April 1, 1911, till to-day, about eleven years, the Public Works Department has been carrying on work in the district with the object of safeguarding from floods the lands adjacent to the Ohinemuri and Waihou rivers. They have expended about £225,000, and the Public Works Department says to-day t/iat the completion of the whole work is going to cost another £400,000- Everyone ?n the district knows that there is no possibility of the district paying for that cost. There is no chance of the settlers paying any considerable share of that cost. It was quite possible to have provided the cost under the Act of 1910, but i.t was found in 1918, when Mr Furkert’s Commission sat—the third Commission—that the cost was not going to be less than £300,000, and to provide the money the Government, in 1919, brought in a clause in the Finance .Bill authorising it to borrow and spend up co £300,000’ They did not at that, time take steps to provide for the payment by the local bodies and the settlers and the Government of ,the additional interest and sinking fund, and that is what is asked in this clause—that the rate on the settlers in the district shall be doubled, that the Waihi Borough and the gold mining companies should have their charges doubled, and that the Government should pay double what it, has hitherto been charged. I protest most strongly against this clause, and, as I have done on many occasions in this House, against, the way in which this loan is being expended in the district. I am only a layman, and only one of hundreds of settlers in the dis-i trict Who see day by day what takes place, but I say distinctly that gross waste and extravagance has been going on, and some years ago I asked Sir William Fraser, when he was Minister of Public Works, to set up a Commission to go into this question. No matter who pays finally, someone has to pay for this work, and any waste is a. serious matter. BURDEN ON FARMERS.

The report of the latest Commission, laid on the table of this House two days ago, says : “If the bulk of the money to pay the interest, sinking fund, and maintenance is Still to be found locally, it is clear that, as the gold duty ami the mine-owners cannot find their quota, the ratepayers within the rating district, must shoulder a very large part of the burden ; and a bur-t den of such weight will entail a rate per acre that may, we fear v be prohibitive. Tn the language of the counsel appearing for several; of the .local bodies (Mr Pprritt), ‘lt will be an absoluto impossibility for them to

bear the burden, as it would crush them but of existence.’ The burden would amount to a rate of 10s per acre per annum.” 75 YEARS’ RATING. So (hat a man with 100 acres is to be asked to pay for the next seventyfive years up to 10s an acre, or £5O a year, in addition to all the usual rates and taxes he has to pay on his .’and, in order to protect it from flooding. When the first Act was passed, and the Government undertook this work, the settlers were satisfied to bear their share of the burden up to the limit of interest and sinking fund on £150,000. AUTOCRATIC RATING POWERS.

But the Government, passed, as they propose to pass to-day, in the dying hours of the session, a clause epi abling them to borrow another £150,000, without any reference to the settlers in the district, or the miping companies, or to anybody else. Today they find, after three years, that they have not made provision for interest and sinking fund on this extra £150.000, and they purpose putting through a- clause now to charge upon the settlers and the Waihi Borough, which is the principal recipient of gold duty, a tax double to that previously charged, and with the possibility in front of the settler? and the mining community of having to pay their share of another £300,000 or £4'00,000 of expenditure. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.

I ask that the Government immedii ately take steps to investigate by independent engineers—though I am quite prepared to accept the opinion of Mr Furkert as one of them —the works carried out and now under wpy in reference to this matter. The best engineers both in New Zealand or Australia should be secured. It w'ould pay better to spend £5OOO for the purpose of obtaining an independent engineering report on this matter than to go ahead and spend another £300,000, and find at the end of that time we have not made provision for protecting the settlers. NAVIGATION NEGLECTED.

The latest report states that the Department has not done a single thing to improve the navigation of the river. It, says : "Moreover, it must be borne in mind that, so far, the Public Works Department has done virtually nothing to remedy or prevent the silt-ing-up of the Ohinemuri River’ or to ‘ipiprpve such river for the purposes of navigation,’ notwithstanding that such works are amongst the principal operations entrusted to the Department by the Act, and are quite the principal works in respect of which the mining companies and the Borough of Waihi can be, and are, called upon to contribute, ajid towards which they have already found upwards of £20,000 The Department has partially constructed a stop-bank, to protect the trough pfl Paeroa, and has killed a large number of the wil-i low trees on the banks of the Ohihemuri River, and removed many of them, but it, has done nothing to relieve the river of the large quantity of mining silt deposited on its banks or in its bed, and consequently such silt is still lia.bl.e, in case of a heavy flood, to be washed down by the river and spread over the adjoining lands; nor has the Department done anything to render the Ohinemuri River suitable for navigation.” "MASTERLY INACTIVITY.”

And, so far as the. Commission can gather, nothing is proposed to be done. Here is Mr Furkert’s report of 1918 with regard to the question of navigation, in which he says : “The question of the importance of navigation and its intimate, connection with the flood-protection works has already been stressed in this report. Your Commissioners can only reiterate that no scheme can be con-' sidered satisfactory which does hot, simultaneously with providing protection from floods, also contemplate the improvement of the river for navigation.” DREDGING ESSENTIAL.. After eleven years nothing has been done to improve this river for navigation. The Commission oif 1910 came to the sarnie conclusion as that of 1918. One of the strongest recommendations of that first Commission was that two dredges should be put on the river at once, and that those two dredges should clear the river to a minimum depth of sft at Tow water, while the deposit taken out of the river should be utilised to erect stopbanks ; but nothing has been done by the Public "Works Department. Well, it will have to be done. By providing proper navigation you are going to provide for the protection of ths land ajid its drainage; but the Pubt lie Works Department has not done one single thing in regard to navigation. The last Commission in its report time after time refers to the evidence of the Northern Steamship Company’s captains, to the effect that it is an absolute nightmare to those

trading bn the rivers at the present time. Some twenty-five years ago the boats came right up to the town of Pa,eroa. Then a railway bridge was put across the river and a wharf built immediately below'the bridge, which is in the town. With the silting of the river the boats had to move to what is known as the junction of the Ohinemuri and Waihou rivers, and later down to the Puke Landing, while at the present time bn many occasions the boats cannot get up even to the Puke. If this matter of navigation and dredging is not remedied it will only be two or three years before the boats will not get beyond the mouth of the .river, AUCKLAND TRADE MENACED. Then, when you come to the upper reaches of the Waihou River running from Paeroa to Te Aroha-the same thing is happening. There is a large trade done between Auckland and Te Aroha by means of the river, because the freight charges by river are very much less than by rail, and it pays to bring goods by boat from Auckland to Te Aroha and tranship them to Waihou, Waitoa, and even Morrinsi villd. rather than bring them by rail from Auckland to Morrinsville; so that it is a tremendous asset to the settlers of those districts. The Commission recommends that a certain charge be made on the settlers to keep the river open for navigationThe Public Works Department is at the present time spending between £50,000 and £60,000 ■ a year. I have received letters within the last week from settlers in different parts of th'edistrict who were flooded out at the end of last month, and the Prime Minister has had similar communications. I had a letter which I sent, to the Minister of Public Works, asking that something should-be done immediately to protect those settlers who have taken up land there and are trying to make permanent homes for themselves. The work has been going on for the last eleven years, as I said, and yet absolutely nothing has been done in the matter df protection. When I was in Paeroa two weeks ago every settler was as badly flooded as before any work was started. What is the use of spending money if that is going to be the result to the settlers ? The Department says, “You cannot get protection until the work is completed.” Well, that means that we cannot get protection for the next fifteen years, because the Department will be spending money there for that period, and the result will not be satisfactory ; in fact, it will be almost nil unless some change is effected. I am satisfied that proper protective works could have been put there to protect the whole of the land if the work had been started in the right way. SUITABLE 1 DREDGES. F wrote a letter some time ago to the South Australian Government ask-, ing for Information in connection with a dredge of theirs, and .the following is the reply I received from the South Australian Harbour Board, dated May 20, 1921 :

"Registered tonnage, 395 ; net, 142; length, 137 ft 6in; breadth, 29ft 6in; depth, lift 6in ; loaded draft, fore. 7ft 6in; aft Bft 9in; built of steel by Werffe Gust firm. Cost £3.6,000, Suction and delivery pipe, 28in diameter. "The makers give dredging capacity 1130 cubic yards per hour, the dredger has recently excavated and pumped ashore 250 cubic yards per hpur of stiff clay and silt to reclaim land 16ft above low water, through 1000 ft of 28in pipe line, but she has not been tried in a large quantity of free running material. Reclamation of Poole and Steel's block ip 1919 at Osborne cost 12%d per cubic yard, including all charges (total quantity 104,000 cubic yards). “Presept working cost per day, £l9, including coal and stores, shore gang wh?n reclaiming additional £6 per day.” If dredges of that class or some such suitable model had been at wbrk since 1911, as recommended by the

1910 Commission, we would not be in the'deplorable state we pccupy today. * PROTEST FROM WAIHI. Now, Sir, this is a telegram I rei celved this afternoon from the Waihi Borough Mayor: “Thanks for wire.. We must protest against any clause in Finance Bill if it commits borough to any further financial responsibilities.” The Waihi Borough Council was the principal instigator in having year’s Commission set up with the object of having a. reallocation made of the amount they have to may towaids these works. They were pot satisfied with the share they were paying of £150,000, but now they are actually asked to pay a share of £300,000 on the same basis. What is going to be their position if these works are gone on with until, say, £500,000 is expended? They cannot pay their present allocation. This Commission’s report was in the hands of the Government on September 26 last, nearly five months ago, but it was presented to the House only two days ago. Surely the Minister has had time to arrive at a decision as to what should be done. The Government must do something. They cannot allow this matter to drag on month after month and the expenditure to continue piling up, and then come.. along later and pass legislation to compel the settlers and others to- pay. The settlers cannot pay ahyi thing until, the work is completed because they are suffering as much now as they suffered, twenty years ago, or more. Sir, I bring this matter up now because it is of vital importance to my district. It is a matter that the Government has got to face, and inkmediately. The Minister of Public works had no right to leave this question until the last day of the session and then bring forward a proposal like this, involving such liabilities on the people of the district. ' A NATIONAL MATTER.

The Commission reports that if this £600,000 is to be expended the Gov : ernment must provide half of It., I think the Government should bear the greater part of the expense, for it is a national work for the benefit of a large district, and the settlers are not in a position to bear the cost, even if they should. The whole of the works, in my opinion, should even now be completed for £300,000, one-half of what it is proposed to spend. The Government should undertake at least one-half Of that responsibility and the .settlers and the gold-mining interests might be prepared to bear the balance, but. not until protection is provided. OHINEMURI COUNTY. Take this matter as it affects the Ohinemuri County Council; their total rates amount to £3303, in addition to which they have gold duty and' gold revenue amounting to £955, or a total of £4258. If Ohinemuri County is to pay the 25 per cent that the Commission ' recommends —on the basis of one-half the total cost, that is £3oo,ooo—then they will have to pay for the next, seventy-five years £.2500 out of their rates and one half of their gold duty, another £5OO, or £3OOO a year for seventy-five years, and that, is to come from a poor, county because apart from the small area of rich’ country near the rivers the greater part o.f that county is high pastoral land. I n’ow ask the Prime Minister to withdraw this clause in the meantime.

The Right Hon.. Mr Massey: I am going to do so. DEFINITE DECISION WANTED. Mr Poland : I am glad to hear that. I take this opportunity of bringing this question before the Minister of Public Works, because he went through the district twelve months ago and had strong representations made to him, and I now ask him to go into this matter personally with his engineers and l let the settlers know the attitude of the Government so that, if neceissary, they may take further steps.