New Zealand Parliament.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 130, 15 August 1868, Page 5

New Zealand Parliament.

HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. FRIDAY, JULY 31st, 1868. The Canterbury Rivers Bill. Mr, Rolleston, in moving the second reading, said that since leave was first obtained to bring in the Bill, it had been found that provisions of the same nature were much required in other parts of the colony, and he therefore proposed to ask for a Select Committee of members interested in carrying out a Bill to meet the wants of their districts. The principal features of the Bill were that the Superintendent of a province would have power to proclaim districts within which the Act should come into effect, and appoint conservators to erect such works as were necessary for protection for the country from rivers in case of overflow. It was proposed to adopt the valuation of the Road Boards or Borough Council, where existing, and to make provision for taking lands similar to that in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act. It was hardly to be expected that there should not be provisions not in accordance with the provisions in case of ordinary public works throughout the country, as the subject was one which presented many abnormal features ; but he thought if they obtained a workable Bill to enable districts in danger from the overflow of the rivers to avert those calamities, they would have good reason for satisfaction, though the Bill might not in all points be free from objection. Mr. Kerr thought it would be far better to confine that line of legislation to the Middle Island.

Mr. Ormond pointed out that the Bill was a permissive one, and he thought one very much wanted in some districts. Powers were vested in the Superintendent, which he for one thought excessive, and other amendments were requited to make the measure workable; but he thought that the North, as well as the Middle Island, would be glad to have a measure of this kind for those districts that asked for it.

The Speaker thought it his duty to call attention to the character of the Bill, which, at present, was apparently of a private nature. As he observed, it was limited in operation, and contained powers enabling parties to enter and take possession of private property. Mr. Hall would submit that the Municipal Corporation Bill, as passed by this House, contained a similar power with reference to private property, which was struck out in the Legislative Council. It would be found inapplicable to give notices respecting this Bill to individuals who might ultimately be affected by it, as they could not know beforehand to which districts its action would be extended, but he trusted that the Committee would endeavor to provide that ample notice should be given to all parties whose land should be taken. The objection that the Bill was a private one, because applying only to a portion of the community, was, he thought, with all due deference, equivalent to laying down as a principle that any Bill applicable to one province only was necessarily a private one. It seemed a very important principle, because they had been in the constant habit of legislating for individual provinces, and hitherto had not considered such Bills to be of a private character, but it was very desirable to know for the future whether a different rule was to be followed. The Speaker said it was often a difficult matter to decide the character of a Bill, although the restrictive nature of its operation must be always the chief element in determining that; but it did not always follow that a restrictive Bill was a private one. It must be always considered whether public policy or private interests were its object. Mr. Eolleston hoped the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill now, as it was a very important matter that some such Act should be passed with reference to a district which had suffered considerably from freshets, not only in private property but also in public, for the roads had been washed away in all directions, and communication was interrupted. Mr. Eyes hoped the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill, as it embodied a very important principle, and was required in several of the provinces of New Zealand, It would be a very important matter indeed, if such an Act was passed, for the province of Marlborough where both public and private property had suffered and was likely to suffer from the overflowing of the rivers. The roads had been washed away, and communication from one part of the province to another

interrupted. He could not agree with what had fallen from the honorable member for the Pensioner Settlements, as there was no analogy between this Bill and the Act for the protection of certain animals. This Bill was entirely of a permissive character, and would only be brought into operation in those parts of the colony where it was really needed. He hoped the House would consent to the second reading, and allow the Bill to go before a Select Committee, where many important improvements could be made in it, and where, as the honorable member for Clive had stated, some of the provisions could be considerably modified. He entirely agreed with that honorable member, that the powers, proposed to be placed in the hands o± Superintendents, was too great, and he should like to see those powers conferred upon the Provincial Councils acting with the Superintendent. Mr. Haughton said that although he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, he objected to some of its principles. It would throw the expense that should be paid out of the. provincial revenue on the people in road districts, and it appeared to him to aim a very severe blow at provincial institutions.

Mr. Ludlam hoped the House would read the Bill a second time and refer it to a Select Committee. He believed a Bill of the character was very much wanted in some districts of the colony, and that it should be made applicable to the whole colony. The Speaker had stated that the Bill might be considered in the shape of a private Bill, because it merely affected the interests of private individuals, and not the public. If it applied, to the whole it would very much affect the question of public thoroughfares. They all knew that the rivers in New Zealand were very difficult to deal with : that they caused a great deal of damage which might in a measure be averted if there was proper machinery to do so. There was a river in the district he represented which threatened to do a great deal of damage—to destroy a public main road of one portion of his province—and if it was allowed to go on unchecked it would involve an expenditure of forty or fifty thousand pounds to make a new main line of road. He thought it desirable that a body of conservators should be ap pointed, who would be always on the spot to take prompt action to prevent damage being done. Where rivers had taken a new direction, the cutting of a small point would avert a large amount of damage. The conservators would be enabled by law, when danger threatened, to take prompt means of averting it. The Bill would place the people in the country in this position, that they woidd have the power given them of levying a small rate on property for the purpose stated. They had seen stupendous works carried out, at an enormous cost, which had been utterly futile, from want of local experience in dealing with them. Men of local experience should be appointed to watch those rivers, who would have sufficient means within their reach to adopt measures to avert danger when it threatened. He had for years called the attention of the Government to the encroachments of the river in the district where he lived ; but no amount of persuasion on his part could induce the Government to take steps to avert that encroachment. He trusted that the name of Mr. Curtis would be placed on the Committee, as he had considerable practical experience in dealing with the encroachment of rivers, and the assistance of such an experienced man would be very valuable to the House. He would support the second reading of the Bill. Major Heaphy, V.C., believed that some such measure as the one proposed was necessary to prevent the encroachment, and the tendency to change the direction in rapid rivers in the colony. He hoped the title of the Bill would be altered. There was a great number of rivers that' were impeded by fallen timber, vegetable growth, and other circumstances. There were deep rivers in which vessels of lai’ge tonnage might sail, and which were now only used by canoes or row-boats. Some legislation should take place on the subject, and the Bill was one which should emanate from this Parliament. Mr. Graham would support the second reading of the Bill, which he considered would be a very useful measure. He hoped the title of the Bill would be altered, as suggested. Mr. H. S. Harrison said that having resided for some years on the banks of a river, he had seen the necessity for legislation On the subject. He believed that encroachments of rivers might be traced to the encroachments of settlers on their banks. The encroachment of the river referred to by the honorable member for

the Hutt had been caused by the settlers stopping up the water-course. That ancient river, after our settlement, had been sore let and hindered in its onward course, every dead substance having been thrown into it, from a dead cat to a dead rata tree; hence has been caused much spoliation and unavailing toil. Motion agreed to. The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.

Mr. Rolleston moved that, in the event of the Canterbury Rivers Bill being read a second time, it be referred to a Select Committee, with a view of adapting it to the whole colony. The Committee to consist of Mr. Travers, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Ludlam, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Eyes, and the mover. Three to form a quorum. Report to be brought up this day week.