MINISTER FOR LANDS’ CHARGES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4882, 25 September 1925, Page 2

MINISTER FOR LANDS’ CHARGES.

PLAINS COUNTY REPLIES.

Piercing the Smoke Screen.

Matter Fully Dealt With.

A full reply to the charges made by the Hon. Minister for Lands—including one that the Council had been guilty of illegal conduct—has been drawn up by a committee and adopted by the Hauraki Plains County Conn cil. The charges and the reply are as follows :—

"1. We understand that the Honourable Minister stated from the floor of the House that the Hauraki Plains County Council had been taking 2d in the £ from the settlers in Patetonga riding and giving nothing in return. “2. We understand him to have said that the Council should do something for the improvement of the roads in the Patetonga riding. “3. We understand him .to have given an emphatic denial to a statement, which he attributes to Cr. McLoughlin, that he (the Minister) had threatened to arrange for an auditor to investigate the county books. "4. We further understand him to have said that .the councillor for Patetonga riding had stated to him that the council was expending within the riding practically nothing of the £BOO collected.

“5. We also understand him to maintain that the records of his department went to show that no serious objection was 'raised at the time the Patetonga riding was taken over by the County Council, and that as the matter was arranged at a properly constituted conference, at which all interested parties were represented, he could not see his way to allow the area again to revert to the control of the drainage branch of his department.

“6. Wo next understand him to have said that the settlers were taking the attitude that the Government ought to do everything for them and were trying to fight the Lands Department.

“7. Lastly, we understand him to have said that the Council, as well as some of the settlers, appeared to take up the attitude that the responsibility was one entirely for his department and for the general taxpayer, and that he was roundly abused for his efforts bn their behalf. “These are the sum of the charges which we understand that the Hon. Minister for Lands made in tne House and to the Press against this Council. We proposed to consider them in their order, and to compare them with, the facts.

“The ffirst charge is that the Council had been taking 2d in the £ from the settlers in Pa'tetonga riding and giving them nothing in return. That this statement is false, may be shown best from the balance-sheets, as follows :

“During the last year the riding was reducing a relatively large debit balance.

“This is the second occasion on which the Hon. Minister has made this charge. He first made it at Ngatea, when he added to his charge the threat that he intended to have the matter- inquired into. Having made it then, the chairman of .the county (not Cr. McLoughlin) contradicted it and istated th,at the county balance-sheets had been audited and returned to. the council without a ‘tag.’ It was then that the Hon. Minister evaded the difficulty by passwhat in his ‘apology’ to the Press he was pleased to term nis jocular remark.

“The charge having been promptly contradicted, we submit that a fair and unprejudiced person would have either accepted the denial or carried cut the threat of investigation. But it. would now appear as though the Hon. Minister preferred to leave matters as they were, to ignore the chairman’s contradiction, to put the construction which suited his purpose on a statement made at Patetonga and, aided by the power derived from his position, to repeat the charge against the council from the floor of the House. No doubt such - a statement from a Minister of the Crown would rouse attention and excite surprise throughout the Dominion. It was this first charge which prbvoked the council’s resentment, and which is grossly and palpably contrary to fact.

“The second charge is that the Council should do something for the improvement of the roads in the Patetonga riding. “If the first charge were true, then this one would be a corollary and. could be admitted ; but as the first one was false, then this one, which was, made with the manifest design of belittling the efforts of the council while at the same time magnifying those of the Lands Department, falls with it. This being so, we might leave this charge and pass on to the next but as the Hon. Minister has intermeddled and tried to foment trouble between the settlers and the council we think it only fair to the latter to state some of the things which it has done and attempted to dp on behalf of those settlers. The Lands Department has used undemitting industry to blacken and discredit the council on every occasion on which the latter has attempted to protect the settlens. By inspired a--ticles in the newspapers the department carefully occupies all the avenues to public opinion,- which, apparently, is the only thing it fears. “Some of the things which the council claims to havg done for the settlers of Patetonga are as follows : Maukoro deviation legalisation, £550 ; Maukoro deviation bridge, £l4OO ; formation of Maukoro Landing roads, filling at the Devil’s Elbow, pound site formation, formation and metalling of Kaihere-Ohinewai Road ; grading of all roads ; repairs to bridges, culverts, and water-tables. “The third charge is that the Min-

ister) had threatened to arrange for to a statement, which he attributed to Cr. McLoughlin, that he (the Minister) had threatened to ararnge for an auditor to investigate the county books.

“No doubt Cr. McLoughlin stated what Was in the mind of .the Ministei, though he did not use the exact words. At Ngatea, after making the first charge, the Minister stated, menacingly, that he intended to have the matter inquired into. At Patetonga he said that if the statement was so, the position required investigating. By whom ? Surely not by the Hon. Minister in person. Obviously by the only persons competent to do so—the inspectors of the Audit Department. It was only after tne county chairman had denied the charge that the Minister closed for the time being, but did not forget, the matter.

“Charge number, four is that the councillor for Patetonga riding had stated to the. Minister that the council was expending within the riding practically nothing of the £BOO collected.

“Cr. Mayn denies this statement. He states that he told the Minister that there was an area within the riding where the Lands Department had not completed its promised works, and consequently the council could de nothing to the roads in that area until the department fulfilled its part.

“Of the 26 miles of roads in Patet'onga riding open for traffic and now under, the control of .the council the Lands Department forced upon the council eight miles. Of these eight miles one mile has had a coating of ‘■hingle and the rest are clay roads. Cr. Mayn’s remarks referred to 4 % miles of the eight miles. Tihs road is not metalled, and the Lands Department promised to clay and reclay it until it was fit to receive metal. It is obvious to anyone who has the ‘slightest knowledge of local body matters that a county council could not metal these or any other roads out of a maintenance rate.

“The next statement is that the records of the Lands Department went to show that no serious objection was raised at the time the Patetonga riding was taken over by the county council, and that as the matter was arranged at a properly constituted conference, at which all interested parties were represented, the Minister could not see his way to allow the area again to revert .to the control of the drainage branch of his department.

“We have not .access to rhe said records, so we cannot x say how much they do record, nor upon what the Gon. Minister based his opinion that no serious objection was raised at the time. It is true that a conference was held at Ngatea on June 28, 1922, between the council on the one side and the chief and local drainage engineers on thb other. Any report made by those officers would be made from their memory of what took place. The councillors have their Several memories to reply upon, plus the report of the meeting published ' in the local newspaper’s, plus the records in the council’s office. From these we can say that ,the Patetonga area was forced upon the council. “The question of the handing over of part of the area administered by the department was first raised by a letter embodying a Resolution of the council’s and dated August 31, 1920, and addressed to the Minister for Lands. The council apked the Minister to hand over that area which had been metalled (many miles away from Patetonga). It asked him to reinstate all worn metalled roads, in. that area, and to metal the unmetal--led gaps between the metal in that, area. In a further letter to the Minister, dated December 8, 1920, the: council asked him to make the wholesof the area under his control which had been settled for five years and upwards liable to an administrative , rate estimated at 5-16ths, of a penny in the pound. “The Minister took no action in the matter until the beginning of 1922, when he notified his intention of bringing down a Bill to amend the Hauraki Plains Act. In March bf that year the council put certain ; questions to the Minister, who answered them by letter dated March 23, 1922. In reply to the first question the Minister stated that the department did propose to. reserve to itself the right to metal certain roads in special areas. At the, conference the department’s representatives held out that it was not the policy of the.department to metal roads. “In reply to question *e’ the Minis--, ter stated it was the intention of the.department to clay all roads through; the peat country. At the conference: Cr. Mayn pointed out that some roads: needed reclaying, and the chief drains age engineer said the department would do any reclaying that was necessary. Cr. Mayn said that one portion of Patetonga Road had been clayed and reclayed and still required attention. The chief drainage engineer said the department would not hand over any roads which were not in a fit condition. The county clerk asked how soon could the department reclay Patetonga Road, and the local drainage engineer replied by promising that as soon as the road required reclaying the department would do it. The chief drainage engineer said the council could' rest assured that the roads would be handed over to the council in a fit condition. “So much for the proimses of the duly accredited representatives of the Minister at the conference. As time passed the tone changed. The department forgot the promises which itsrepresentatives at the conferencemade, and which should appear in theMinister’s records. The department neglected to do the reclaying, anif when prompted by the council the Under-Secreatry replied in a letter

dated May 19, 1924, that so far as he was aware no promise had been made „ that the road (Patetonga Road mentioned above) would be reclayed throughout. He reminded the council that the settlers were paying rates for road maintenance, and that the peat roads had not been maintained. , After stating the position to be a serious" one, he offered to find half the cost of the clay for three years from, the handing over of the road. The council replied in a letter dated June 30, 1924, denying liability for the claying of the peat roads, reminding him of the promises made at the conference, pointing out that, the council had protested at the .time against the handing over of the road, and that he himself had personally promised the settlers to reclay the road. The letter proceeded with ,the statement that the council .time and again urged the department not to hand ■< over other than metalled roads, be- ... cause it would mean that the council would be compelled by law *o collect a rate from settlers whose roads it coiild not maintain. The council stated,further, that apparently this appeal had been forgotten, for the council’s inability to deal with clay roads was being thrown in its face as though the fault was the council’s instead of that of the depatrment, which forced the position on the council in spite of its: opposition. ‘•Neediest to say, there was no reply to that letter, no denial of the statements made in it, and no attempt made to prove the council wrong—only an ominous silence continued until January, 1925, when the ~ Hon. Minister was at Patetbnga (the council and its letters forgotten or overlooked), when the council was berated for not doing what the department had promised to do. “How can the Hon. Minister Bay that there was no serious, abjection ? He sent his representatives to the conference, and then refused tc consider any but the departments proposals.. It may be that the sanguine declarations of his officers lulled the council into a sense of security as to tne future, with a result that the council, did not actively oppose the department with its Bill when its power was commensurate to its will. The council’s submission ip now held out to shame it, but even if the department is able to exult in its * triumph over the council’s misfortune, yet misfortune is not a crime, nor is indiscretion (if it be such to trust to. the promises, of the department) always the greatest guilt. “Charge six is- that the settlers were taking the attitude that the Government ought to do everything for them, and were trying to fight the Lands Department. k . “At the time the Minister made this statement in the House he had in his possession a letter "from the Patetonga Ratepayers’ Asociation dated August 13, 1925,. offering to- .rate themselves for one-third of the- cost of metalling almost till the roads in the riding. “The wish being father to the thought, no doubt .this is the interpretation that suits the purposes of a department that lias no respect for the opinions of others and pays, those opinions off by a very full, measure of confidence in its own. Broadcasting statements throughout the Dominion, it may fairly be said that its own approbation of its own acts has to it the appearance of a public judgment in. its favour. Behind this smoke screen the department carries on its. drainage operations. But there is the reverse of the shield which tells an- ' other story. While the department ooasts of its -spirit of toleration it would be astonished if it were held to the letter of ita own descriptions. “Who induced people to settle on tlie Hauraki Plains ? What was the ~~ attitude of the department at .the inception of the scheme ? With its fervent appeals to the public to come and select land on the Plains it promised all sorts of things: metalled roads, drains, special grants, exemption from rates, fresh water, bridges, and what not. At first the department pretended a most tender, delicate, and scrupulous anxiety for the welfare of the settlers, who were led on with deceitful dreams and visions ■ of prosperity created in their minds from the newspaper accounts of the scheme, accounts approved of, if not inspired, by the department. “With the stablishment of the scheme, the fervour of the department waned. It became forgetful of its promises, began to treat the settlers with indifference, and as officers were promoted, they tired of their plaything. Finally, with a shrug of contempt, they forced the land over to (he council while the scheme was still a thing of patches. “If .the-settlers have become uneasy is there no cause for anxiety? Land , which a few years' ago was high and dry. now regularly floods, and is practically useless l for months every year. If the settlers appeal to the department; which has created the present position, is it to be construed into asking the Government to do everything for them ? If the settlers become incensed at the indifference of the department, and are insistent in their requests- are they trying to fight the department? To u's| it is more like a struggle for self preservation. But ’ what does, it matter under what name the department injures the settlers and deprives them of the just fruits of their industry in which they were not only permitted, but encouraged, - by the government to engage; and upon the supposed security from floods, the had formed the plan of their lives, contracted debts, and led others to an entire independence upon them. Even if ,the settlers persist in their requests to the department. it is from necessity and not from choice; Some of them now see their farms sinking further under water each winter as a result of the department’s operations. The depart= ment put soldiers on the land, where they became absorbed, sunk, and lost for years in poverty and peat. “While matters continue as they are the prospect of the future must be as bad as the experience of the

past. “The last charge is that the Couheil, as well as some of the settlers, Appeared to take up the attitude that the responsibility was one entirely Jor the Lands- Department and for the

general taxpayer, and that the Hon. Minister was roundly abuised for his efforts on their behalf. “Appearances are sometimes deceptive, as the council has learnt from experience. Btu if the Hon. Minister means what the Hauraki Plains Act says, namely, that he is thereby authorised to construct and carfy on such works as he thinks- fit for the drainage, reclamation, and roading of the Plains or otherwise fbi rendering the same fit for settlement then we do say, unhesitatingly, that as the power is in his hands to do as he thinks fit for rendering these lands fit for settlement, then the responsibility rests there entirely—he cannot use the power without assuming the responsibility. The question, of course, turns on when these lands are fit for settlement. No doubt the answer is a matter of opinion. They certainly are unfit when under water or when they are composed of deep peat which will not grow a blade of grass, and equally so when the only Access to the sections is a paper road which is surfaced with a mixture of peat and marine mud that makes an unspeakable bog and is quite impassable for months each year.

“While the council is of one mind on this matter, the officers of the Lands Department seem to hold different opinions. The Hon. Minister in a letter to the council dated September 30, 1924, disagreed with the opinions of two eminent counsel that the completed road promised by the department meant a metalled road. He said the meaning of the term must necessarily be governed by departmental custom, which, in opening land for settlement purposes, was to do earth formation only. He claimed that all the department had done in the past was to obtain subsidies, and had acted in loco parentis to the council. The Hon. Minister could bring himself to say this, after his department had metalled fifty miles of roads in a part of the Plains out of free grants, and had doen so for ten years after the late Mr Massey promised to do so at Pipiroa on January 18, 1913.

“We know that the Hon. Minister hats written to the council stating that his records did. not show that Mr Massey made the promise, but as against these records we have the facts that the metalling was; done, that there are settlers on the Plains now who . were present when .the promise -was made, and that a report of the promise is recorded in the ‘Thames Star of January 20, 1913. When the Hon. Minister was at Pipiroa this year he said he had caused inquiries to be made and had not found any of Mr Massey’s promises made in writing that had not been fulfilled The promise made by Mr Massey in 1913 was not in writing, and yet it was fulfilled so long as Mr Massey was Minister for Lands.

“While the Hon. Minister differs from us, the Under-Secretary appears to support our contention on the metalling question, for in his reports to Parliament on the drainage operations in Hauraki Plains'he states.: — “Report, 1912. —‘The necessity of metalling all formed roads is manifest. and must sooner or later be faced out of special grants and loans other than moneys raised under the provisions- of the Hauraki Plains Act, which did not provide for metalling.’ “Report, 1913. —‘As no county rates are paid by settlers on Hauraki Plains, naturally the upkeep of roads is a charge upon (special grants and the Hauraki Plains Settlement Account.’ “Report, 1914.—-‘Under heading ‘Metalling of Roads’ he states the expenditure under this heading out of special grants was £4095 3js 4d. “Report. 1918.—A1l metalling is done out of special grants, and it is proposed .to carry on same if funds are available.’ “What could be clearer ? The necessity for metal is manifest. The position must be faced out of special grants and loans —it was faced by Mr Massey for ten years out of special grants.

■ ‘‘So far, in the Lands Department’s camp we have one for and one against our contention. There is, lastly, the present chief drainage engineer. who tips the balance of opinion in the department in favour, 'of the present Hon. Minister for Lands. At the conference in June, 1922, the chief drainage engineer said it was not the policy of the department for the Government to continue metalling. When asked w<hat the policy waiSvhe replied that they had nd policy, really, except to spend sums of money from year to year granted by the Government- The department was really in the position of a local body, having power only to spend money as it was granted by the Government. “What are the council and the settlers to think ? If the Hon. Minister is right, then the policy of the Lands Department is mud*’ roads,, whatever public, the Public Works Department, and the Main Highways Board may think, not to speak of the ‘individuals’ who have been led to conclude that all roads would be metalled. "If the Under-Secretary for Lands was right, then the . necessity for metal on the roads was manifest, and it had to be faced by the department out of special grants< and was so faced from 1913 to 1923. “Lastly, if the present chief drainage engineer was right when he conferred with the council as the duly accredited agent of the Minister, then the department has no policy, really—a view with which your committee is tempted to agree. J “However, if it has appeared that the council (as well as some of the se.ttlers) has taken up the attitude that the responsibility for the rendering of these lands fit for settlement rested with the Lands Department do not the facts justify that attitude. “The council hag. not thrown any responsibility On the general taxpayer, .whom the Minister calls to his aid. nor has it abused him for his efforts on its behalf. To ask a man to pay a just debt is not to abuse him, nor is it so to ask a department oi a Minister to fulfil promises made. “In conclusion, we say, let the department and the Minister carry put the former’s promises, which the lat-

ter has inherited, and there will not be even an apperance of the abovementioned attitude ; but there will be for the Minister praise which will be. given by the council and the settlers both in unequivocal language." The council adopted .the repor.t, and also passed resolutions to the effect that, having read the newspaper account of the discussion in the House relative to a commission on the Hauraki Plains drainage works, it records the fact that it would welcome a commission or any other means of throwing a full light on the operations bn the Hauraki Plains of the Lands Department, and that it appreciated the efforts of Messrs T. W. Rhodes and H. Poland, M’s.P., on behalf of the settlers.

At a later stage in the meeting, when general business was being discussed, it was decided that in the opinion of the council the Lands Department should metal the main roads in the area of the Patetonga riding lately controlled by it.

Year Rate collected Spent, 1920-21 £349 £203 1921-22 £624 £258 1922-23 £841 £369 1923-34 £179 £259 1924-25 £731 £154