THE KIRIKIRI BRIDGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4485, 30 October 1922, Page 1

THE KIRIKIRI BRIDGE.

»WI'SSKI> AT NGATEA. AN INTERESTING DEBATE. “Is the Kirikiri Bridge essential to the Hauraki Plains, and, if so, is the Hauraki Plains County Council justified in building it under Section 119 of tlie Public Works Act ?” was the subject of a debate promoted by the Ngate.a Mutual Imprpvement Society, and held on Thursday evening in the Ngatea Public Hall. Tlhe chair was occupied by Mr W. McDuff and there was a fain attendance, not entirely composed of Ngatea residents.

The debate was both interesting and instructive, and though it was possible that the contestants were reasoning against their own convictions some very sound arguments' were put forward. Mr A. R. Vowles, seconded by Mr G. T. Davidson, led the affirmative, while Mr W. Madgwick, of Turua, supported by Mr S. Blacklaws, championed the negative. The arguments of both sides were particularly sound, ajid those present, when" voting on the merits of the speakers’ efforts, were equally divided. The chairman gave his' casting vote tp the negative. The chairpian said the subject of the debate was one of the burning questions on the Plains to-day. He explained the procedure of the debate. The principals would have'2o minutes and the seconders 10 minutes each. The principals would have the right to speak for 10 minutes at the conclusion of the debate. He also said that the views expressed by the speakers may not be their own personal opinions. Ip the voting those present should vote on the merits of the arguments put forward.

THREE YEARS! OF PERSECUTION. Mr Vowles said that he had to say all ho bad to say ih 20 minutes. The County Council occupied anything up to 24 hours to have their say: how could lie, an amateur, s,ay all he had to say in 20 minutes ? He brought to notice that the Turua Ratepayers’ Association had asked the County Council to urge for a more frequent service for the Kopu ferry; yet the association opposed the bridge. They no sooner said, that they did not want to go to Thames than jthey found that they could nbt get there often enough. He was therefore not alone in contending that the crossing was necessary. He further argued that the country could not do without the town, and on the other hand the townspeople looked to the country. There should therefore be some means of communication. Then there were cases of sickness and. accident, when life and death hung in the balance and depended on getting quickly to the hospital. He had known of a number of these cases, and quoted several, especially referring to the previous day’s accident at Kaihere. Scven' hours, he said, were occupied in taking the child-to the hospital. “Let the same thing happen to yourselves,” he said, “and ask yourselves what it would mean to ypu in rates.” The Thames was tlhe natural outlet for the Plains, he argued, and this district was the natural heritage which belonged to Thames; therefore there should be communication with Thames. They certainly had a motor service to Paeroa, which was’ handy, but to get to Paeroa one had to go over the worst roads in New Zealand.

A Voice : There are no “pubs” in Paeroa.

Mr Vowles, dealing with the County Council’s action in the matter, said the objection to the bridge had been raised because the County Council had not taken a poll.’ The objection was on a principle, but it was a poor , compliment to the ratepayers’ own judgment in electing the present councillors, ,wh.p had to undergo three years of persecution and harassing. The speaker would not be surprised if some of the present councilliiip refused to stand again. "If a poll was taken it would have to oe taken in three different places. The business people of the Thames Borough recognised the importance of the bridge, but there were other rate- x payers who 'had to be reckoned with.' Those latter may turn it down, and even if the Thames County and Hanraki Plains County carried it, the whole thing would be squashed. When a county council was committing the ratepayers they were committing themselves, too, and what the ratepayers had to pay for the councillors had to pay for also. MODE OF PROCEDURE. Mr Madgwick said that probably the bridge was a necessity, and he would admit that necessity, but was it a prime necessity—was lit a vital necessity ? Was there anything more important than a bridge ? He maintained there was, for instance, roads. The cost must also be considered. His side of the district (Turua) was heavily rated. Admiral Jellicoe had said that the speed of a fleet was judged by the speed of tne slowest vessel, and so Mr Madgwick maintained tha> the resources of a county were judged by the poorest part, of it. He considered that his district was the poorest in the county. Regarding the site of the bridge, he asked if the site had been determined by an unbiased party. The Puriri bridge would cost £27,000 and the Kirlkiri £60',000. Regarding the necessity from a medical point of view, his district (called "the Balkans;’’) had solved that problem by having a doctor on the spot. There was also a private hospital there. The most vital objection against the Kirikiri bridge, or any bridge, was the mode of procedure, that of erecting them under section 119 of the Public Works Act.

“We pay the piper,” he said, “and we claim the right tp vote on it.” He had nothing against the county councillors. They were gentlemen, every one of them, but it was their policy. The ratepayers had every right to vote on a public question of this sort. BRIDGE A NECESSITY. ' Mr Davidson, seconding Mr Vowles, said some maintained that the bridge was a necessity because they wished to go to Thames for a ‘*spot.” The Hauraki Plains County Council was vested with certain powers. If the ratepayers voted fop ajiy man to go on to the council before knowing what powers a council had, the vote should be out of order. The people of the Plains were producers and the people of Thames were business people, and wanted to sell something. He complimented Mr Madgwick on the fight he had put up. Regarding the cost of the bridge, he said he admired the way the Turua people had fought, and good luck to them. Turua was not a popn district, and the rates were not heavy for £lOO per acre land. Every way one looked at it the bridge was a necessity. He congratulated the County Council on the stand it had taken.

PLAINS FAVOURABLY SITUATED

Mr Blacklaws, speaking in defence of Mr Madgwick, said Mr Davidson maintained that, one voted for a 'councillor, who had the say for three years. Mr Massey could not enforce prohibition ; he put it ,to the people. Regarding the necessity for the bridge from a medical point of) view, he said, the Plains was more favourably situated than many other districts. His opinion was that there should be good roads. The money should be spent on roads before bridges. There would be nothing fairer to the public than to take a poll. VIEWS SOMEWHAT NARROW; The Rev. R. G, Hemmings asked if the money was being best spent bn a bridge. Roads should be the first consideration. Many people would rather gp to Auckland instead of Thames to do shopping. Thames, ’'n his mind, was a “good old has beeh,” and, like other places, was suffering from senile decay. Thames wished, to renew its youth at the expense of the Hauraki Plains. Thames, would die some day or other. “Let us fake care we don’t die as well,” he concluded. Mr H. 0. Harvey was surprised that the views were somewhat harrow. By the bridge being at Kirikiri the whole of the Plains could be suited by it, whereas the Puriri bridge would'not. The whole of the Coromandel Peninsula would also benefit by the Kirikiri bridge. Mr Pari said that all the money would be used up with building the bridge and none would be left for the roads.

Mr C. W. Schultz said it appeared as though they were buying the cart first and the hbrse afterwards. Mr C. W. Parfitt said the objectors were quibbling over a small matter. The bridge would cost £60,000 and the roads probably a hundred thousand. Why not have bridges’ and roads, too ? Mt Schultz : I would like to ask Mr Vowles what is his’ attraction in Thames ?

Mr Vowles: I’m not allowed to split.

CONCLUDING ARGUMENTS.

Mr Madgwick, in his concluding remarks, replying to the assertion that Paeroa was no good to them on accbunt of the roads, asked whose fault was that. Turua had granted him a free license to oppose anything that came alohg. He, would oppose anything. (Laughter.) Mr Vowles said he v could see no reasons against his arguments for the bridge. There were excuses, but no reasons. The two most important excuses were hard times and a latk of understanding bf the aims and aspirations of our public meh. It would, however, be years before the ratepayers would have to .pay rates on the bridge. Surely there was nobody so ultra pessimistic aS to think that affairs would not improve in a couple of years.

z Voices: We will be Worse off. Mr Vowles said the County Council had been much misunderstood. % CHAIRMAN’S CASTING VOTE. dn a vote being taken 18 voted for the affirmative and a similar number for the negative. The chairman said 'he could not vote against his convictions. The ratepayers should be consulted before expending ten or twenty thousand pounds. He recorded his vote in favour of. the negative. The Rev. Hemmings moved a vote of. thanks to the speakers, who had come a long way to participate in the debate. The resultant applause was sufficient evidence of the audience’s approval of the motion. A vote qf thanks was also passed to the chair.

Mr Vowles, expressing his thanks, said, “Candidly, I don’t care twopence if they never build the bridge.”