“Potter’s Clay”

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 359, 21 May 1928, Page 1

“Potter’s Clay”

CITIZENS DENY MOULDING Side Issues at Transport Inquiry ALL this morning was occupied at the Transport Commission in cross-examination directed to various aspects of the two schemes for greater Auckland, one the metropolitan scheme and the other the amalgamation scheme. Both were described as red-herrings. Transport was barely mentioned. Mr. Holdsworth, witness, said the Citizens’ Metropolitan Committee was certainly not led by ML Eden. It was not clay in the “potter’s” hands.

The examination of Mr. W. J. Holdsworth, representing the Citizens’ Committee, was continued by Mr. A. H. Johnstone, counsel for the City Council. Concerning the turning down of the £500,000 loan, witness said he was not aware of a similar loan having been turned down anywhere. His view was that the ratepayers would not take on outside extensions which might involve them in loss. Mr. Johnstone: Some people had the view that trams might not be the means of transport in the future?— Some pepole hold that view. Would you be surprised to hear that the cost of power to the Auckland tramways is considerably higher than in any system in the main centres in New Zealand? That is wrong. We can prove it by figures. Witness remarked that even if Mt.

Eden would not have been as it was but for the city, the Mt. Eden residents did not lose much sleep over who was Mayor of Auckland. Witness said that at one time he had considered the formation of greater Auckland by amalgamation as the best method of overcoming the difficulties, but he was now convinced that the Metropolitan Board, with the retention to some degree of smaller local bodies, for administrative work, was much the more preferable. He would go so far as to say that amalgamation would be better than the present position, but the co-ordination proposed under the new scheme had his fullest support. “We want two things to retain local interest,” said witness, “one the retention of local bodies, and the other elections on the ward system.” He compared the proposed Metropolitan Board with the Education Board controlling the whole district, the school committees looking after the local interest. “Are we not aiming at much the same thing by different roLites?” asked Mr. Johnstone. “I think we are,” said witness. “I can see no reason for all these little fire boards round the city,” remarked Mr. Johnstone. Witness: You are gradually coming round to our point of view. Ho you suggest that in 50 years you could do away with the Harbour Board? we would not do away with it, merely bring it under different control. As a matter of fact, this metropolitan scheme has been dropped by your committee?—lt has not. The scheme is far from complete —The scheme is complete. The details have not been gone into. NOT CLAY IN THE “POTTER’S” HANDS ! . Mr - Johnstone remarked on a clause m the minutes incorporating the statement “led by Mount Eden.” “You know what that means—war to the death,” he remarked. Mr. H. M. Rogerson, counsel for various suburbs: You have no right to make that statement. Mr. Potter denied any hostility. “I can asure you Mr. Johnstone that the Citizens’ Committee is by no means clay in the 'potter’s’ hands,” interjected witness, amid laughter. Can you see any justification for 23 local bodies in Auckland?—No. I suggest that there is room for only on e—Yes, this one (indicating the Metropolitan Board). Witness said he would get over troubles about differences in boundaries by grouping districts in the most convenient manner for administration.

One Tree Hill, Remuera and Newmarket could go together. Mr. Johnstone: I hope you have had due regard to the social revolution in grouping Newmarket with Remuera. RED HERRINGS “What was this commission set up for ?” asked witness, and proceeded to say that the unrest in Auckland now was such that 75 per cent, of the people would vote for the metropolitan scheme. “The commission isn’t sitting to have a red herring like this scheme drawn across the trail,” remarked Mr. Johnstone. “Nor the Greater Auckland scheme,” countered Mr. Rogerson. In any case he asserted that the Prime Minister had said the solution of the .present difficulty seemed to be in a Transport Board. Witness admitted that between all the local bodies there was bitterness and lack of co-ordination. Something was necessary to revise the whole position and bring it up to date, and it must come. The chairman, Mr. J. S. Barton: Ho you not think every change in ownership to some extent disorganises the tramways?—Witness could not agree that this was unavoidable. It had not been noticeable when the Power Board took over. ANOTHER COUNCILLOR The next witnes was Councillor L. Alfred Eady, who also advocated the control of transport, as well as of other general utilities, by a metropolitan board. His view was that the present dissatisfaction was not the result of mismanagement by the City Council, but it was the effect of the anomaly of a local body with but local powers and limited boundaries endeavouring to serve an extensive metropolitan area without penalising its own ratepayers. As a member of the Tramway Committee he was impressed with the difficult position of the city in administering a regional utility serving far beyond its boundaries. SUPPORTS, BUT ALSO OPPOSES “May I make myself perfectly clear,” remarked witness. “As a representative of city ratepayers I support the City. Council’s policy, but, also as a representative of the ratepayers, I am opposed to the City Council having the responsibility for a metropolitan service that involves the ratepayers of a limited area in a financial burden which should be shared by the people of the whole area enjoying the use of the utility.” Bus competition had brought a recognition of the necessity for co-ordi-nation in control, followed by legislation, and the result had been that a revenue producing trading department had been converted into a responsibility for a regional transport, part of it designed to develop outside districts, the burden falling on city ratepayers. While the principle that every service must be self-supporting was sound from the city point of view, it was untenable from the broader metropolitan aspect. He suggested that transport and power were directly related, and, as a busin.ess-.man, he failed to see how loss of efficiency and economy could be avoided. In round figures the Power Board had £400,000 worth of plant solely for tramway purposes, and last year it charged £99,000 for power supplied to the undertaking. The agreement was that this power must be supplied at cost, but the method of computation was also open to dissatisfaction. The Power Board was vitally inter--

ested in the development of electrified transport, and was a body with reserves which might profitably be used in extension of electrified transport. He felt that the Power Board had the organisation to handle the transport service, and that the two services would best be run together. Cr. Eady considered that the transport problem was closely involved in the broader question of local government revision, and that the recommendations of the commission would determine the future tendency of development. The Citizens’ Metropolitan Committee had been impressed with the modern tendency for regional services to be separated from purely local administration.

Referring to Tamaki’s amalgamation with the city owing to Tamaki’s financial state, witness said the position reminded him of the story heard at inquests. “The operation was entirely successful, but the patient died.” (Laughter.) “Peace, perfect peace,” said Mr. Holdsworth, as he stepped from the box.