PLAINS DRAINAGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5420, 6 May 1929, Page 3

PLAINS DRAINAGE.

HAURAKI CLASSIFICATION. LEGAL ADVICE TO BE OBTAINED The Hauraki United Drainage Board at its special meeting on Friday last further discussed the question of classification, which was introduced some months ago by Mr R. H. Heappey, who gave notice of intention to move the following resolutions :— “That in future all rates in connection .with the old Hauraki Board’s loans be levied in accordange with the terms and conditions under which these loans were raised, and by the terms and conditions laid down by the Minister when amalgamation was granted.” “That the classification of the whole United district be reviewed and amended so as to remove the present cases of hardship and unfairness.” At its previous meeting the board discussed the reply to a number of questions on the subject which had been received by it from the Undersecretary, Department of Internal Affairs, but the only decision reached was to secure a copy of the Order-in-Council concerning the union of the Horahia and Hauraki drainage districts. This had come to hand for Friday’s meeting, and stated that, “in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the Lands Drainage Act and the Commissions of Inquiry Act, a Commission was appointed to inquire and report whether the Hauraki Drainage District and the Horahia Drainage District should be formed into one united district as provided by the said section; and whereas the Commission, after due inquiry, had recommended that the districts be united to form one • united district; and whereas the boards of the said districts have agreed to the following conditions, namely: (1) That all special rates made as security for loans existing at the date of the union of the said districts shall continue to be. levied only within the area over which they were respectively originally levied ; and, (2) the name of the united district to be the Hauraki United Drainage District, and the number of trustees for such district to be seven.” The Governor-General, acting by and with thd advice and consent of the Executive Council, thereupon ordered and- declared the two districts to be united as from April 1, 1927, under the name of Hauraki United Drainage Board, and having seven trustees. The balance of the Order-in-Coun-cil set out the boundary of the united district. . In opening the discussion the chairman said that this was no clearer than the previous advice from the Department of Internal Affairs. He was of opinion that the clause did not refer in any way to classification, but merely to the area. In reply to Mr F. H. Hamilton Mr Heappey said that once a loan was raised on a certain classification, that classification had to stand till the loan was paid off. It, could be slightly amended. Mr Murray asked Mr Heappey why this aspect was not brought out in Court when classification objections were being heard, Mr Heappey replied that the board had stressed that its proposed uniform A rate was for maintenance alone. The objectors realised that th'e classification for the loan could not be altered, so they did not stress the point to the Court. Continuing, Mr Heappey pointed out that the matter had been referred to the Internal Affairs Department, and that letter had been approved by the board before being sent. The reply had been definite, he contended, that the board should rate for its loan on the 1925 classification. He did not think there was any need to seek further advice.

Mr F. Hamilton said that if this was so it was a wonder the Undersecretary,. Internal Affairs Department, had not clearly stated that the 1925 classification should be used. His letter was very indefinite.

Mr Heappey argued that the letter clearly stated this in the clause “that all special rates made as security for loans existing at the date of union shall continue to be levied only within the-area over which they were respectively originally levied.” That part of the condition which said that all special rates must continue to be levied was very clear, Mr Hicks contended that the purpose of the clause was to define the area in which the rates were to be levied. This was, to his mind, obviously inserted to make it clear that the board could not spread the liability for the special loans over the whole of the United Drainage District.

Mr F. Hamilton urged that the matter be referred to the Internal Affairs Department for a simple answer as to what classification should be used. Mr Hicks said, he was concerned with seeing that the board acted legally, and he would like to see the point referred to the Supreme Court for a declaration. Members opposed this on the score of expense. Mr Murray said that some settlers were being penalised by the present system of rating, and he would favour reverting to the classification previously in force. Mr F. Hamilton questioned whether the 1925 or the 1917 classification should be used. The letter seemed clear that it was one of these, and it was to clear up this point that he would advocate referring the simple question to the Internal Affairs Department. Mr Hicks said that personally he wotld like to go back to the old classification, but until the legal position was clearly defined he would vote against the motion. Mr Miller supported getting a further answer from the Internal Affairs Department or advice from a lawyer. Mr Heappey strenuously opposed fifo. saying that it was next door to ar, insult to ask the Under-Secretary to explain the letter more clearly than he had already done.

Mr Williams asked Mr Heappey what would be the position if some land classed D was given direct drainage benefit by a new drain. Mr Heappey said that before the board agreed to this new drain it should require a request from the D class settlers that their land be classed A.

Mr J. Hamilton expressed a doubt that the Under-Secretary would answer the question suggested by Mr F. L. Hamilton, as he had stated in his letter that if further information was desired the board should consult a solicitor. Mr F. Hamilton moved as an amendment to Mr Heappey’s motion that the Internal Affairs Department be asked to state definitely what classification list should be used. Mr. Miller expressed the hope that the amendment would not be seconded, as a doubt would still exist as to what classification list should be used for maintenance purposes, and whether two lists could be used at the same time.

After altering his amendment to meet several suggestions, Mr Hamilton finally withdrew it. Mr Hicks again urged getting a legal decision, and Mr Heappey agreed to the board’s letter to the Internal Affairs Department, and the department’s reply being submitted to a solicitor for a decision. Mr Hicks Contended that all the information on the subject should be given to the lawyer. On the motion of Mr F. L. Hamilton, seconded by Mr J. Hamilton, it was agreed to submit the whole of the correspondence on the question to Mr Gilchrist, solicitor, of Te Aroha, and ask him to state on what classification the two old loans for Horahia and Hauraki should be rated, and whether the board could have one classification for general purposes and a separate one for special loans. Mr Heappey made an inference that members were interfering with the board’s correspondence. He pointed out that certain papers belonging to the old Hauraki Board could not be found, and that letters approved by the board should not be altered before being sent. Mr Miller suggested that the chairman, the clerk, and Mr Heappey interview Mr Gilchrist on the subject. This was agreed to. Mr Hicks suggested that the legal opinions received by the. board from Mr E. L. Walton be sent to Mr Gilchrist. This was not agreed. tq, and the clerk was instructed to send Mr Gilchrist a copy of the board’s resolution, copies of the letter to and the reply from the Internal Affairs Department, and a copy of the Order-in-Council.