THE EMPOWERING BILL.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4754, 22 September 1924, Page 3

THE EMPOWERING BILL.

evidence before committee. CHIEF OBJECTIVE LOST. On Thursday morning the Local Bills Committee of the House of Representatives was engaged in hearing evidence for and against the Hauraki Plains County Council Empowering Bill. The Committee comprised Sir G. Hunter (chairman), and Messrs F Rolleston, J. C. Thomson, H. Armstrong. W. D. Lysnar, F. F. Hockley, and D. G. Sullivan. Mr T. W. Rhodes, Thames, in introducing the Bill, explained the difficulties with which the Hauraki Plains County Council was faced in dealing with its bridges, the best solution of the difficulty being to make all bridges county matters, and that this was the object of the Bill. Mr Ernest Walton, county clerk, produced a plan of the county show- . ing the Orchard Bridge special rating area and the Puke Bridge special rating area, and the main to Thames and to Paeroa. He showed that under the present position, when the Kirikiri and Pipiroa bridges were built- the Orchard and Puke bridge special rating districts- would be doubly rated owing to their already having to pay their own bridge rates. The Bill accordingly provided that a loan should be raised over the whole county to pay off the Orchard and Puke bridges, as the council considered this the only fair thing to do. Referring to Clause. 3 of the Bill, Mr Walton said the power sought, namely; that the council be empowered to raise loans for bridges without a poll of ratepayers, was necessary in order to give effect to agreements now existing between the Hauraki Plains County Council and other local bodies regarding the bridges mentioned. It would be urged by the objectors that the existing legislation was all that was required; but he submitted that the special conditions existing in the county rendered special legislation necessary. He produced a lengthy report by Mr E. F. Adams, engineer, of Thames, in which the opinion was expressed that the only sane method of coping with the Plains bridge policy was to make all bridges county matters. ■ln conclusion Mr Walton stated that the Kirikiri bridge, the Pipiroa bridge, and the Maukoro bridge could be erected under the Public Works Act without a poll of ratepayers, but the council considered that the equitable method of dealing with the matter would be by means of the Empowering Bill, so that the Orchard and Puke bridge special rating districts could be abolished.' Messrs Rolleston, Armstrong, and Lysnar asked the witness several questions and elicited the information that even if clause 3 of the Bill were deleted clause 2 should remain; Mr Hockley observed that if a majority of ratepayers supported the Bill as stated by Mr Walton then there was no need to fear a poll. Mr Poland cross-examined Mr Walton at some length, and sought for

some special reason to justify the - council in asking for power to build V future bridges without submitting the proposalto a poll of ratepayers. Mr Walton could give no other reasons than those already stated. Mr J. C. Miller, county chairman, said he .corroborated all that the county clerk had said. in answer to Mr Hockley Mr Miller said he would be quitq agreeable to clause 2 of the Bill remaining, even if clause 3 was deleted. This concluded the evidence in support of the Bill. -Mr Poland then called Mr Laughlin to give’ evidence on. behalf of the petitioners in the Puke Bridge rating district who objected to the passage of the BillMr Laughlin said that if the Bill became Jaw it would be a dangerous machine in the hands of any council. He went on to show the hardship that would result to the settlers in the southern end of the county if unlimited power was given to build bridges in the northern portion of the county which would be of no benefit to them. Mr Walton had said that the settlers at Netherton had a bridge and were trying to prevent others from being similarly tserved, but this was not so. The settlers of the northern part of the county could have their bridges, but they must be prepared to shoulder the burden, as the Netherton settlers had done when they built their bridge. Mr Laughlin then produced a letter signed by the county clerk in which it was stated that the council could not receive a deputation, as the whole matter had been discussed several times previously. A rate notice showing the heavy rates payable by the ucttlers of the Netherton district was also produced, and a statement of the . position with regard to the Puke Bridge loan. - Mr H. N. Taylor, representing the petitioners of the Patetonga district, also objected to the Bill on the groundthat there was no community of interest between the settle s of the Patetonga district and the northern end of the county. The outlet for Patetonga was through Morrinsville, and merchandise came up the Piako River. They were separated from Thames by 20 miles of mountainous road, impassable in winter. There would be several small bridges required in the Patetonga riding, but these would have to be paid for by the riding, as bridges with less than a 20ft span were not included in the Bill. Mr Taylor also stressed the point that if the council was given power to erect bridges without a poll of the ratepayers the sparsely populated districts might not be able to get bridges they required owing to a minority of councilions being interested. Mr C. N. O’Neill spoke generally for the objectors and cleared up a , misunderstanding which had arisen with reference to clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 2 provides for the raising of a loan over the whole county for 4 the purpose of abolishing the Puke bridge and Orchard bridge special rating areas. Mr O’Neill submitted x that this was a very fair provision, in

view of the fact that these settlers would be liable to contribute to the building of the Kirikiri bridge. The petition ’ had been prepared with a view to obstructing the passage o£ the Bill as a ? whole. If the Committee considered that clause 2 should stand, the petitioners would not complain. It was clause 3, giving the council power to build bridges without consulting the ratepayers, which was objectionable. This concluded the hearing. It was ascertained that the Committee’s recommendation is that clause 3 of the Bill, be deleted, and that the words “by special order, without taking the steps described in sections eight and twelve of that Act,” in clause 2 be deleted.

The effect of this recommendation is that the council may raise a loan over the whole county to abolish the Puke Bridge and Orchard Bridge rating districts, but a poll of ratepayers must first be taken on the proposal; and that for the bridging policy of the Plains the council must depend on the existing legislation, which provides for polls ,of ratepayers being held. Interviewed regarding the, Hauraki Plains County Council Empowering Bill, Mr J. C. Miller, chairman of the council, stated on his return from Wallington that the matter would be the subject of a report to a special meeting of his council to-morrow. The Local Bills Committee had considered the Bill, had heard evidence for and against it, and had permitted it to proceed subject to certain amendments. It may come before the House this week.