BRIDGING THE WAIHOU.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4454, 16 August 1922, Page 1

BRIDGING THE WAIHOU.

HISTORY OF THE KIRIKIRI. AN INTERESTING REPORT, An, extremely interesting report on the history of developments ip connection with the proposal to bridge the Waihou River at Kirikir,i was placed before the Hauraki Plains County Council at its meeting on Monday. The report, compiled by the clerk, Mr E. Walton, is as fallows:

“I have been directed by the chair-, man to prepare a report in connection with Kirikiri bridge, and the procedure adopted by the Council therefor. I will deal first with the history of the movement' from the time of the first meeting of the Council tp the present time, then with the propriety or otherwise of proceeding under section J. 19 of the Public Works Act, and lastly with the proposals which, will be put before you to-day by sections of ratepayers.

A letter bearing date Mar,ch 26, 1920, and written by the Thames Borough Council to the secretary, Hauraki Plains County League, stating that the Borough Council had decided to ask the Government to set up a Royal Commission to allocate the cost of constructing a bridge over the Waihou River at Kirikiri site -and asking for the hearty cooperation of the League was read at the first meeting of this Council, held on May 26, 1920. “The matter was then discussed, and it was resolved (minute No. 22) that a deputation consisting of the chairman, the councillors for Waitakaruru ridings, Crs, Death, McLoughlin, and Hayward should meet the Thames Borough Council and discucs the question of a bridge across the Waihou River. Arrangements were made and the conference held on June 24, 1920, at Thames, The question then resolved itself into one of allocation of cost. After considerable discussion the conference resolved :

‘“That the basis on which the allocation of; the cost of a bridge across the Waihou River in the vicinity of Kopu be 50 per cent, each tp the Hauraki Plains County' Council and Thames Borough Council, such amount to be reduced by such, sum as is received from the Thames County Council in equal proportions, and on the understanding that the recommendation is subject to a subsidy of £ for £ and conditionally oil a Government subsidy ofl not less than 15s per

“This resolution was accepted by the Thames Borough Council by letter dated July 20, 1920, and was adopted by the Hauraki Plains County Council on July 21,1920 (minute 104). ‘‘On September 18, 1920, the secretary of the Thames Chamber of Commerce wrote inviting this Council to attend a conference of all the local bodies concerned. On September' 22 this Council resolved to jneet the chamber re Waihou bridge, at Thames on October 20, 1920, at 8 p.m. (minute 179).

“On October 15, 1920, a further letter was received from the Chambe." stating that the Thames County Council did. not intend ,to take part in the conference or tp concern itself other than with an up-river bridge. Further than that; the Minister of Public Works would not declare himself the controlling authority for the bridge rating district, and that under the circumstances the Chamber proposed to ask this Council .at the conference to have itself constituted the controlling authority and to jnake"applicition for a commission to assess the propo: tion of costs. This letter was read at the council meeting on October 20, 1920, when I reported to you as follows: “ ‘With reference tp the letter from the Thames Chamber of Commerce in connection, with tp-night’s conference over a bridge at Kirikiri there are a number of points which I suggest should receive your consideration before meeting the Thames Borpugh Council to night. It appears the Thames County Council will not take part in the conference, nor will it concern itself with the Kirikiri bridge. That being the case, the Thames Chamber of Commerce is calling the Thames Borough Council and this council together with a view to taking the steps under section 119 of ‘The Public Works Act, 1908,’ "or the setting up of a commission to apportion the cost of; the bridge. I may say here that unless all the local bodies concerned agree on all poin:s in connection with the bridge the only procedure will be by way of section 119. The procedure under section 119 is briefly as follows: The local authority proposing to construct the bridge shall prepare the plans, etc., and send a copy to the Minister of Public Works and to each local authority which is proposed should contribute to the cost ofl the work, together with a notice stating the proportion to be borne by that local authority. Two months is then allowed for the lodging of objections. At. the end of that two months the commission is set up to hold an inquiry and report to the Governor-General, who by warrant will authorise the woik and apportion the cost among the local bodies. There will be no poll, for the Governor-General will decide what manner of bridge shall be constructed, who shall do the work, and what proportion shall be paid by each local body.’ •“The Chamber of Commerce will ask you to become the controlling body for the purpose of taking the above steps, and it is for you tp decide now whether it is desirable that you should consent to such proposal. It must be remembered that to take such step will be to commit this Council to all the consequences of proceeding under section 119. There

will be no poll of ratepayers, this county will always have to manage the bridge, a caretaker, will be needed for it, accidents may happen, and so forth; but this aspect of the case is more of an engineering one, .and no doubt your engineer will advise you thereon.’

"After considerable discussion and several motions it was resolved .(minute 204) that the Hauraki Plains County Council should accept the proposal of the Thames Chamber of Commerce that this council, should be the controlling authority, “In t.he evening at the conference the subject was discussed very fully. It was then thought by the majority that the procedure by way Of section, 119 of the Public Works Act was the most suitable in view of all the circumstances. It was decided to wait until December, 1920, and then interview the Thames County Council. “A two-column report of this conference appeared in the Thames Star, and both in such report apd in the leading articles appearing in said newspaper of October 15 and 22, 1920, prominence was given to the question of using section 119 and that a commission would obviate a poll.

“On November 24, 1920, it was resolved (minute 279) to appoint a committee comprising the chairman, Crs. Death, Harris, and Parfitt to meet the Thames Borough Council at Thames on November 25, and the Thames County Council at a later date to be fixed. At the same meeting it was resolved to define' the rating .area. It was also moved that a referendum on the question of a bridge be taken, but this and the fixing of a rating area were deferred to a later date, when a committee was set up for and went into the subject, but could not come to a decision as to the area, but considered the matter should be decided by a commission (minute 431. 16/3/1.1). For a report of the discussion see the ‘Star.? “On November 30, 1920, I wrote to the Thames County Council stating that a joint deputation from the Thames Borough Council and this Council would wait on it on December 8. 1920, to ask it to join them in the construction of the bridge and state what it considered was its fair proportion of .the cost. The deputation duly put its request before the Thames County Council. “Pursuant to a request, flrpjn the Thames Borough Council received by letter at a meeting held on March 16, 1921, it was resolved (minute 432) to set up a committee comprising the chairman, Crs. Haywar,d end Harris, with the engineer and clerk, tp meet the Thames County and Borpugh Councils in conference to fix the allocations of contributions. Arrangements were made and the conference held at Thames on April 13, 1921, when, after discussion, the Thames County Council representatives offered £(<000 as the proportion of cost to be borne by the Thames County: this sum was accepted. Afterwards it was confirmed by letters from the Thames County and Borough Councils and by minute 275 on April 20, 1921. On the same date it was resolved (minute 515) to proceed with the preliminaries and to emply Mr F. E. Powell to prepare an estimate of the cost and a sketch of the bridge.

“At a conference of local bodies’ representatives held at Thames on April 27, 1921, to meet a Minister jf the Crown Messrs E. N. Miller (Mayor of Thames), J. McCormick, and H. Lowe (Thames County Council), and J V C. Miller (Hauraki Plains County Council) discussed the procedure for the bridge and- unanimously .came o the conclusion that section 119 was the only method, bearing in mind all the circumstances. They decided to recommend their respective councils to endorse that opinion. Both the Thames County and Borough Councils endorsed that opinion by letters dated May 5 and 9, respectively. These letters and your chairman’s recommendation came before you- on May 18, 1921, when, after discussion, of which I set out hereunder the newspaper report, it was resolved as follows (minute 538): Cr. Whitechurca moved that the Council proceed with Kirikiri bridge proposal by way of section 119 of the Public Works Act. Seconded by the chairman. On a show pfl hand being.called for the chairman, Crs. Harris, Death, Mayn, McLoughlin, and Whitechurch voted for the proposal and Crs. Hayward and Chatfield against .it, and the choirman declared it carried. “Newspaper report of discussion on Kirikiri bridge:

" ‘ The Kirikiri bridge project again came before the Hauraki Plains County Council yesterday, when the report of the conference between ,the three local bodies was read, making the Council the controlling body and suggesting the matter should be proceeded with by way of section 119 of the Public Works Act, which would enable the matter to be settled without a poll. “ ‘Cr. Hayward said he thought the ratepayers in the different areas should be asked to vote on the matter. It appeared to him that the Borough and County were trying .0 push the thing without the latepayers being consulted.

“‘Cr. Harris said his opinion was that all bridges should be county matters, as the whole county would receive a benefit.

“ ‘The chairman, Mr J. C. Miller, said that there was no question that the bridge was a necessity, and had to come sooner 'on later, and the council was unanimous that the bridge was in the right place. A commission would be the best and most expeditious way of getting the matter settled. “'Cr. Harris said he was tired of wrangling over the matter. He was perfectly sure the section of the Act

was the right way tp go about it, and the only way to get the matter finally settled.

“ ‘ Cr. Whitechurch moved that the erection of the bridge be proceeded with by way of section 119 of the Public Works Act. This was seconded by the chairman.

“ ‘On being put to the meeting, the following voted in favour of it: Crs. Miller, Whitechurch, McLoughlin, Mayn, Death, apd Harris. Cns. Chatfield and Hayward voted against it.’ “From the above date nothing further was recorded until on February 13, 1922, Mn Powell gave the result of his borings, and on March 13 following produced and explained to the Council his plap and estimate of the cost.

“On April 10,. 1922, it was again resolved that the rating area for Kirikiri bridge be defined (minute 1038). "It is needless for me to mention the details of the motions to come before you to-day.

“Before one can say whether proceeding with Kirikiri bridge under section 119 of the Public Works Act is a proper exercise of a council’s authority, it is necessary to inquire into the nature, purpose, and powers of county councils, for to my mind it is a misconception of these functions which induces such catch phrases as ‘contrary to democracy’ or ‘against the constitution,’ which, w,hen uttered in a meeting, lead some of the ratepayers astray for want of a proper understanding of such functions.

"Now, the scope of the present inquiry is within the phrpse ‘local government.’ By this is meant the administration of those matters which directly concern the inhabitants of, a particular place, and which do not directly concern the Dominion as a whole, however greatly they may indirectly affect the interests of the country at large. For .the better administration of these affairs the country is divided into units, each of which is governed by an elective body with powers and duties well defined. One of these units is the County. By the Counties Act it is provided that in every county there shall be a governing body, consisting of a •council elected as therein mentioned. This council shall exercise all the powers vested in the corporation of the county. A council is made up of persons who are chosen from time to time by the ratepayers of the county to represent them in governing the unit. It is true that each councillor is chosen by tine particular district but he does not represent that district. When elected and returned he serves for the whole county. For the end of his coining to the council is not particular, but general; not barely tp advance his constituents, but the common welfare of the county ; and it is upon this fundamental principle that he is not bound ,to consult with, or take advice of, his constituents upon any particular point, unless he himself thinks it proper or prudent so tp do. Nor is this principle inconsistent with democracy, which is that form of Government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but it is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed. “And it is well to remind your detractors here that two of the essentails of democracy are: (1) The preservation of the Governing body in its whole constitutional vigour, anl (2) absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority.

“If the premises are true, then a county council is a body constituted by law for the purpose of directing anl controlling those matters which directly concern the inhabitants of the county as distinct from those matters which directly concern the Dominion as a whole. Tn the deliberations of the council the members are to consider the county as a whole, and to forjn their respective judgments, for th 3 common welfare of the county, and not for the constituents by whom they were elected.

“Having examined the nature and purpose of county councils, it yet remains to inquire into their powers, which are to be gathered flrpm the numerous statutes concerning local government in counties. It is possible here tp say that: (1) Seldom questions relating to maintenance works require submission to the ratepayers, being proper matters for the consideration of the council. (2) On many questions relating to ne\v or construction works councils must have the consent of; the ratepayers expressed by poll before they have authoiity to proceed. (3) The present trend of legislation is to increase the powers of councils without polls of ratepayers. “Jf Kirikiri bridge were a project affecting the inhabitants of the County of Hauraki Plains solely, then there is ample authority for stating that in such circumstances the taking <jf a poll would 'be mandatory. On the contrary, it is common ground that such bridge would directly benefit and therefore does affect the County of Thames and the Borough pf Thames, .and probably a .much wide) area, but with that aspect I have nothing to do at the present, time. It is common justice that those who benefit should-pay in due proportion, but the application of this principle is not so easy as the enunciation of it. One factor to be remembered is that c-ach unit is a separate and distinct corporation, owning no allegiance or superiority to another. Assume for the moment that, having used the usual procedure for the internal propositions of a unit, i.e., a poll, the three councils have obtained authority to proceed with Kirikiri bridge; How much further is the project advanced ? No one of the councils can enforce its will on the others.

At any stage a dispute may arise, giving endless trouble, and this, perhaps, in the middle of the work of construction. In this socialistic state when all are equal, which shall say it is master ?

“Now, this chaotic condition of affairs has' been foreseen, and the vinculum juris provided in the form of section 119 ofl the Public Works Act, which prpvides that in any case where the local authority of any district desires tp construct a bridge in any position that will, in its opinion, be of advantage and benefit to the whole or any considerable portion of the inhabitants of an adjacent district, as well as to the inhabitants of its Own district, and where it is, in the opinion of . such local authority, reasonable that the local authority of such adjacent district should contribute to the cost ofl constructing cr establishing the said bridge, then the provisions and procedure 'of the said section shall have effect

“Now, who will venture to assert that all the conditions precedent above set out have not been fulfilled with respect tp Kirikiri bridge ? Certainly no one with any respect for his own judgment. If that be so, where is the procedure improper or unconstitutional, when it is the carefully considered plan of the Parliament of a democracy to meet anl provide for this particular phase of local government ? In effect Parliament, after taking into consideration all the advantages of this r-lan and of the defect to be remedied, has found that the former outweigh the latter. Is it, then, proper that a section of ratepayers should question the wisdom of Parliament in this matter, and if they dp so, is it right that you should, listen to them ?

"The conclusion I have come to. gentlemen, is that section 119 is the appropriate method of dealing with Kirikiri bridge, as with dozens of other important bridges throughput New Zealand, many ofl .which have already been constructed under that section ; in fact, its use in such cases is universal.

"The last part of my report deals. with the proposals which will be put before you- to-day by deputations of ratepayers, and which in effect are for the purpose of having revoked the resolution of May 18, 1921, deciding to proceed by waj of Section 119-

“There can be no two ways about this proposal, flor tp rescind that resolution now would be to commit a dishonourable act, one which would take Ibis Council and this County a long time to live down. Everyone would look askance at the councillors as persons not worthy ofl the trust which had been reposed in them. That is the interpretation which would bo put on such action if you were for one moment to consider the revocation of th,at resolution. I think the danger only needs to be pointed out to be avoided, It is not as though the resolution were a matter' only affecting rights within the County, but it affects the rights of and has been acted on by the Thames Borough Council and .the Thames County Council. It was with this procedure in view that terms were made with these bodies, which no doubt took, that aspect into consideration. Then, too, it has been represented tp nearly .every Minister of the Crown that the councils were proceeding, under section 119. In fact, without that fixed purpose it would have been useless io approach the Government f->r a subsidy until each of the three councils had taken a poll, "Had any considerable number of the ratepayers come forward ove.r twelve months ago and requested a poll, then it whuld have keen a matter for your serious consideration.. As I have shown above, this matter has been entrain for over two years, and publicity given tp it at frequent intervals with numerous references to proceeding under csectipn 119 withoui. a poll. In that long period, and with the matter prominently and permanently before the inhabitants, no request for a poll has been made. What, then, are the inferences flrpih the facts ? They are not indifferent to their interests, for on every occasion that a poll has been held a majority of those inhabitants entitled to dp so have voted, and in every instance the Council’s proposal has been supported by a majority of the votes recorded.

“No considerable body of ratepayers is adverse tp the object or to the procedure, or something would have been heard of it within the past two years. “Then, again, the example of Puriri bridge is not helpful, flor about twelve months ago a deputation of eight ratepayers of that special .u re u asked you to concentrate on Kirikiri site, which they said would serve the needs of the majority of the settle! s. One speaker protested against inclusion in that area as he said ‘the po 1 was not a true indication of the ratepayers’ wishes.’ He wanted the support of the Council for, another poll ‘or for a commission.’ This deputar tion stated it was in favour pfl being rated for Kirikiri bridge if the Puriri bridge were not gbne on with. A speaker on a later occasion on the same subject illustrated all the methods by which the Puriri poll was unfair, and he said a bridge lower down was a necessity. Another speaker endorsed these remarks. On the same day another deputation pressed the Council to allow the Puriri bridge to proceed under section 119 and asked the Council not to pay too' much importance to the petition of the first deputation. One of this seeond deputation in writing to the Thannes Star made the following statement in his letter with reference to Puriri ‘lt is quite obvious the County put the clause in to embarrass thoise who were working for the Puriri .bridge, and it gave the opposition the

they were looking for. It is we/1; known on this side of the river that the same opposition if successful in squashing the Puriri bridge will then , turn its attention to doing the same to the Kirikiri bridge scheme. f They are right out against bridges of any description, and I think this Council is only playing with fire when they encourage them in their efforts. “At the present day what have we ? Nothing less than these two sections united for the purpose first of rescinding the resolution passed in May, 1921, and then—their own arguments provide the answer. “Bv a process of elimination the only reasonable inference from the facts is that, the general body of the ratepayers want the bridge and aie satisfied to leave the control where it belongs, and that is in the hands of this Council.”