THE Hauraki Plains Gazette With which is incorporated THE OHINEMURI GAZETTE. Motto: Public Service. MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, & FRIDAY. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1922. PLAINS ADMINISTRATION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4469, 20 September 1922, Page 2

THE Hauraki Plains Gazette With which is incorporated THE OHINEMURI GAZETTE. Motto: Public Service. MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, & FRIDAY. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1922. PLAINS ADMINISTRATION.

The Hauraki Plains Amendment Bill proposes to give the ■Hauraki Plains County Council control of certain areas hitherto controlled by the Government and to sell to the Council the Government wharves and jetties within the council’s boundaries. Clause 2, regarding the taking over of areas from the Government by the Council, is of great importance to the Hauraki Plains settlers. If the Council refuses to take over the areas it would be grossly unfair to parts of the county at present paying a general rate. The County cannot be isolated. It is part of a district, and there is traffic to and from the exempted areas. The areas subject to a general rate must bear this burden, and also the whole cost of the administration of the county, while the benefits are received by the whole county. The Council set out on its policy witii regard to the exempted area two years ago. Its policy was that the Department should hand over the administration of areas as and when the roads in those areas were metalled by the Departments That this stand was reasonable and sound is borne out by the history and settlement of the Hauraki Plains, for the Act contemplates that the third stage in the development of this district was the roading of the land thrown open for settlement by the Minister. The last'stage was to- render those areas fit for settlement. By common consent of Ministers, Lands Department engineers, the Council, and the settlers these areas are not fit for settlement until the roads therein are metalled. Then, in 1913, the Prime Minister (then Minister of Lands), when addressing the settlers at Pipiroa, definitely and without equivocation promised the settlers there assembled that the Government would metal the roads. This promise has been kept with regard to part of the area, but has not been kept with regard to a large portion of the district, more particularly in the peat country. It is further borne out by the fact that in the first two land ballots the Lands Department held out as one of the inducements to prospective tenants to take up land a promise that the roads would be completed. When in 1913 it was pointed out to the Department that this phrase included metalling, the Department very conveniently for itself omitted this promise from future ballots. Lastly, the Council’s stand was justified by the fact that the Lands Department had metalled about 50 miles of roads in the exempted area. Acting on its decision the |

Council asked the Minister to meet it and discuss the proposal to hand over the administration of those areas which were metalled. After several applications and a lapse of nearly two years the Minister sent two of his engineers to confer with the Council on the subject. These representatives at. the outset and throughout the conference made it quite clear that the Department had firmly decided that ft was no part of its policy and it did not intend to metal roads except in certain cases where "it reserved to itself the right” to metal roads. A reasonable interpretation of this is that the Department will metal a few of its favourite roads, but intends to leave the majority of the roads to be metalled by the settlers. These representatives also denied that there was any obligation on the part of the Department to metal roads. In reply to these statements the Council resolved:

“That the Department was under an obligation to metal roads in those districts settled under the first and second ballots, and any agreements made should be subject to the Department carrying out such obligations.” These representatives also made it clear that the Department, while it wanted the views of the Council on the Bill, had no intention of making any material atleration in its provisions. Thus the position resolved itself into this : that if the Council opposed the Bill and were successful in that opposition, then it meant a continuance of the present unfair circumstances in that about half the county is bearing the cost while one-third of the county has its roads metalled and is exempt from general rates. These areas referred to (the half and the third) are on the valuation basis.

It is a question, therefore, which would be the lesser of the two evils —Would it be better for the Council to go on as it has been going, or submit to the proposed change ? Would it be better for it to oppose the Bill or submit to it at the same time pressing for the metalling of the roads ?