King Country Chronicle WEDNESDAY, OCT. 2, 1972 ROADING NATIVE LANDS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 505, 2 October 1912, Page 4

King Country Chronicle WEDNESDAY, OCT. 2, 1972 ROADING NATIVE LANDS.

The Minister for Public Works has included among the duties of a County Council the making of roads as well as the maintenance thereof. In taking this view he is diametrically opposed to the principle enunciated at the recent conference of backblock local bodies. It may be soundly contended that the Minister, in propounding such a view, is investing the local body with a function which rightly belongs to the State. The only warrant for suggesting that road formation should be undertaken by the County Council lies in the fact that large areas of unroaded native land have been taken up by Europeans. These lands require roads, and it is a moot question as to where the responsibility lies. We already have the Ministerial pronouncement that the lands directly benefitted by the roads should bear the cost of the work. Strictly interpreted this may be presumed to mean that the holder or holders of the fee simple of the land through which the road passes shall pay for the road. At first glance this seems to be a simple and easy solution of the problem, and had such a principle been properly established, and strictly enforced in settling the country no grievance could have been created. In view of the fact that no such principle was established, and that the settlement of the ountry has been conducted hitherto under entirely different conditions there is grave danger of the creation of a real grievance. In the majority of cases in which native land has been taken up the lands pre held under lease from the natives. The native owners, having leased their lands, are not likely to offer a contribution towards the cost of roading. To force the lessee who has only a temporary title, to bear the cost of roading is directly opposed to the principle of making the lands bear the cost. Presumably, to give effect to the Ministerial dictum the proper course would be to apportion the cost between the lessee and the native owner. Excellent arguments could no doubt tie adduced in support of such a principle, but one or two important issues have also to be considered. In the first place precedent is valuable as tending to influence any decision to be arrived at. A large amount of road work has already been done in this district by the Government to open up areas of Crown land. Incidentally, much native-owned land was roaded at the same time, and no levy was made on the owners to bear portion of the cost. Furthermore, any considerable roading of native owned lands which is undertaken in future will benefit, to some extent, areas of Crown lands. When the wave of settlement invaded this district, and land hungry settlers were forced to take native land or remain landless, they could hardly bo expected to realise that the whole responsibility of roading the locality devolved upon them. In the light of past settlement, if they considered the question at all, they were justified in assuming that the Government would grant Jjsome assistance in roading. That substantial Government assistance should be forthcoming is indis-

made out by the various local bodies affected, to place the matter on a more satisfactory fuoting. The people who are settling these lands are engaged in a great national work which will result in much profit to the State. By employing their capital and brains in converting tho wilderness into productive lands they are largely increasing the best assetß of the country and contributing very materially to the wealth of the State. The roads which are necessary to open up these lands, instead of competing with the railway,as has been foolishly held,will act as feeders to the railroads and enormously increase the railway returns. These and other contributing causes serve to lift the roading responsibility out of the realm of local government, and cause the said responsiuility to be hailed as a function of the State. There is no desire on the part of the local authority, or of the settlers, to escape thei>* reasonable and equitable liabilities, which can be readily determined by any Government desirous of promoting settlement. Moreover, it is obvious that the work in question is altogether too important, and of too great magnitude to be satisfactorily undertaken by any ordinary local body. It is to be sincerely hoped the recommendations of the local bodies will be seriously and sympathetically considered by the Government in the interests of the Dominion at large.