THAMES HARBOUR BILL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4446, 28 July 1922, Page 2

THAMES HARBOUR BILL.

ATTITUDE OF PIAKO COUNTY COUNCIL,

A summary of the Thames Harbour Empowering Bill was received by the Piako County Council on Monday from the Council’s representative on the Harbour Board, Mr. H. A. Cooper. The chairman (Cr. F. W. Walters) said tlie Council had not received a reply to its application for a mao showing the boundaries of the proposed harbour district. The Council had not received a copy of the proposed schedule of rating. Cr. O. Glynn considered the Council should co-operate with the Matamata. County Council, Te Aroha and Morrinsville Borough Councils, and the Matamata Town Board in seeing that the interests of the districts governed by the bodies named were safeguarded. Cr. Walters said it was unfair that the south-western portion of the Piako County should be rated the same as the north-eastern portion. In answer to Cr. Qlynn Cr. Walters sa-d the town of Thames and the county of Hauraki Plains had five members on the Thames Harbour Board and had the preponderance of voting power,. Waihi was in favour of tihe scheme and Paeroa was against it. Cr. Walters said Mr. E. McGrego", of Mc.rrinsville, was acting on behalf of Mcrrinsville in resisting the measure. Nothing could be done by the Couivil until the schedule came to hand.

THE AMENDING MEASURE. POSITION OF MORRINSVILLE. With an amending Bil] shortly coming before Parliament to make the findings of the Commission which sal a year ago law, the position ip relation to the proposals of the Thames Harhjur Board is of considerable interest to people of the Thames Valley. In an interview with the Morrins,ville “Star” on the subject. Mr. E. McGregor, of Morrinsville, who acted as counsel for the Morrinsville Borough Council during the sitting the Commission, and who has taken an a< live part in watching the interests of the people of Morrinsville and the Piako county, said that under the Thames Harbour Board Loans and Empowering Act of 1920 the harbour board district was defined. Th's district comprised, inter alia, the borough of Morrinsville. Under this Act Morrinsville was to be rated at oneeighth of a penny in the £ on the capit 'l value, the rating being on the same basis.as that for Te Aroha, Paerca, and Waihi borpughs. Matamatai town district and Matamata county were not included in the harbour district, and consequently were no‘ liable flor any rates. Owing largely to the opposition to t,he Bill when it wa?> before the Local. Bills Committee a clause was inserted in the Bill providing that ,the Governor-General might appoint a Commission of three competent persons to inquire into and determine whether (a) any, and, if anv, then wh.a.t areas, should be added to or excluded from the harbour district; (b) what amount of rates should be leviable upon the various properties within the respective areas comprised within the harbour district. A Commission was subsequently appointed by His Excellency the Governor-General, consisting of the late Mr F. J. Burgess, Mr H. J. W. Blow, and Mr Mervyn Wells'. After hearing a considerable amount of evidence the Commission presented its report to the Minister. The Commission recommended that (a) the harbour district should be extended to include the Matamata town district and the greater portion of the Matamata county ; and (b) that the proportion of rate to be leviable on the Morrinsville borough should be reduced from one eighth, of a penny to one-sixteenth of a penny, or one4half of tlhe rate to be paid by Te Aroha and Paeroa, and that Matamata town district should be rated the same as Morrinsville. The Matamata county rate was fixed at the same rate a u that for the Piako county. A certain porticn of the Piako county lying towards Cambridge was to he cut out of the district.

Mr McGregor; said (lite amending Bill was now being brought down by the Thames Harbour Board in order to give effect to the Commission’s recommendations, and it was with. the. effect of t,hi’s amending Bill on the borough of Morrinsville that the people of Morrinsville were more particularly concerned. The position was one of peculiar difficulty. It was quite certain that a determined effort would be nmde to kill the amending Bill by the ratepayers in the Matamata county. Mr. McGregor considered the Matamata people were wise in adopting this attitude. Mr. McGregor said the point which seemed to him needful to be borne in mind by the ratepayers was that the rating under the Thames Harbour Bill was on the capital value, not on the unimproved value, which was the method ?n which the Morrinsville rates were levied.