EMPOWERING BILL

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 211, 5 September 1924, Page 8

EMPOWERING BILL

WIDE POWERS SOUGHT.

AUCKLAND COUNCILS AIMS. RESTRICTED BY PARLIAMENT. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Thursday. A desire to make all transactions on the part of the Auckland City Council as open as possible was disclosed in the Hoiife of Representatives this evening, when the Auckland City and Museum Empowering Bill was passing through its various stages. Discussion centred round clause 8 (c), to which Mr. A. Harris moved an amendment in order to prevent the City --ouncil disposing by private treaty of any surplus land not required for carrying out any public work for which the l;md had been taken. His amendment provided for such sales in terms of section 30 of the Public Works Act, 100S, so that the land valued by a competent valuer.should be offered first to the person from whom it was acquired, and t hen to adjoining owners, and if they did not!desire it then it must be offered by public auction.

The Hon. C. J. Parr, Minister of Education,, moving the second reading, said that the bill would enable the Auckland City to double its water supply. Other | 'lauscs empowered consolidation of ! loans and the lending of money to nor- | them boroughs for a new road. There I had been some discussion Over a clause | enabling the corporation to deal iv lands j required for road improvement purposes: j there was nothing new in the proposal | that the corporation should be able to acquire more land than was actually required for an improvement, and to gcll the surplus. Two committees of the House had approved the bill, and he thought the House would agree that the powers of dealing with surplus lands were not much in excess of the existing legal powers under the Municipal Corporation- Act. Subjection, (c) of clause 8 conferred power to sell or grant leases without. submission to auction, but it was governed by the provision that this was only exercßable in settling cases of compensation. It might happen that an owner was entitled to compensation, and would take instead a frontage on the new street. Obviously this could not be subject to public competition. Mr. F. N. Bartram: A very dangerous procedure. Mr. Parr: A very useful procedure, that a dispossessed owner shall have a fair portion of his land back. He explained that other sections enabled exchanges of land to be made between the Council and the Harbour Board -without coming to Parliament on every occasion, and power was taken to construct a harbour front road. A museum rate was authorised, in another clause, and the corporation was to be permitted to sell lands unsuitable for -tljeif specific ■reservation so long as the proceeds were kept for capital purposes.' : There had been a good deal of newspaper discussion of clauses 8 and" 9, and this had served to clear the.ajri Ce'rtauily it had shown that some of' the fears'expressed were groundless, and when the House, /went into committee on the bill he believed sections 8 and 9 would be'found to have pretty sound defence. It must be remembered that a large city nowadays was in.a different category from a small borough, or road board.! Auckland City owned assets running into • five millions, and its revenue, from all :sources- was ; considerably over £500,000, -'. It was'con- i ducting a huge business,-and the City Council could be regarded as' almost a small parliament. Probably l when Greater _'Auckland was constituted it' would deal with a population of 200,000. Mr. Parry: What is the national debt? Mr. Parr added that under such conditions, withi a corporation administering such extensive interests, they should not too- closely scrutinise and restrict powers which that body wished to exercise on behalf of its ratepayers.' ■ . ■ . A Dangerous Clause. . ' . . Mr. Harris suggested that clause S was very dangerous, because it sought jiowers far in excess of what the ordinary law provided. While in no way reflecting on the probity of the City Council, he considered that a general application of power to acquire and to sell land without the procedure set out in the Public Works Act was exceedingly, undesirable. He. had occasion to. strongly criticise the proposal of the Harbour Board tp hand over to the. O?ty Council. land valued .at £30,000 in consideration of £9049. The bill gave power to. sell land and put .the proceeds to capital account; this could be. utilised •to thwart ■ the wishes of ratepayers by \ carrying out a work from this capital account when a loan for the., purpose Tiad been negatived .by the ratepayers. He did not say that.this was proposed, but he felt that this general power was too -wide. He intended in committee to move certain amendments with the object of bringing the provisions of section 30 of the Public Works Act into operation' in connection .with clause 8 of the bill.

Mr. M. J. Savage stated that it was desirable to decentralise the Government within reasonable .limits, but when the franchise was quite different from the Parliamentary franchise he felt that the House ought to be careful in granting a wide delegation of its powers. Why legislate for Auckland? What that city, was entitled to have Wellington, and other cities should have. Mr. Parr: Hear, hear. Mr. Savage concluded by suggesting that this aspect would need close scrutiny in committee. Mr. Parr, replying on the second reading, declared that clause S was uot so objectionable as the member for Waitemata made out. The main powers in it already existed in the Municipal Corporations Act. which gave a council power to sell lands. Air. Wilford: Wellington City Council has done it. ~ . . Mr. Parr: Yes, it is done every day in the week. He added that Mr. Harris was obviously under misapprehension regarding sub-section (c), under which land need not be submitted to auction. This provision only covered a case where a man was entitled to compensation and the council was able to meet his claim by means of land on the new frontage created during the course of improvements it had made. The bill was read a second time without division. In committee Mr. Parr said the Public Works section did not apply to the bill, and pointed out that the proposal was similar to that adopted in connection with the Anzac Avenue scheme. - Some Plain Speaking. Mr. J. S. Dickson, (Parnell) said that the mention of Anzac Avenue was unfortunate because two Aucklind City Councillors lost their seats on the council for dealing with Anzac Avenue property. People in Auckland did not want to see that sort of thing again. There -"» also a transaction in connection with

Vulcan Lane, when the Anckland City Council purchased property for £40,000. They wanted a width of ten feet and sold the balance to ten individuals for £25,000. If the City Council was to be allowed to negotiate big deals there should be a clause safeguarding the ratepayers and property owners. There had been dealings by the City Council in regard to the Civic Square which had been turned down by the people but was persisted in by the council in spite of this. It was the duty of Parliament to protect the people. The Hon. J. G. Coates said that the owners of adjacent properties benefited from the City Council improvements. The object of the clause was to enable the council to reap some of the benefit as a set off to the expense of the ratepayers. The council, however, was asking a power which the Government itself did not possess. Mr. Harris: That is so. Mr. Coatcs: That does not mean it is unreasonable, but the interests of ratepayers should be safeguarded, so that the transaction at least will be above board and understood. Mr. Wilford: Tlie ratepayers ought to be guarded. Mr. Coates: The clause is in the right direction provided wo. can safeguard the ratepayers and show transactions above board. I do not suggest the Auckland City Council would try to do anything shady. I believe every transaction they have undertaken has been, in their opinion, in the public interest. Mr. V. H. Potter said clause S, as it l stood, could be very much abused, and lent itself to traffic in land by any dishonourable councillors who might have seats on the council in future. He was not concerned about the constitution of the council to-day, but he reminded the House of the Vulcan Lane transaction. . Mr. Parr: Surely there is an explanation. Mr. Potter: There is, and it might be satisfactory. I am not doubting the transaction. Mr. Parr: I know nothing about it. Mr. Potter said that if there was a law that lent itself to abuse it should be amended. Mr. Parr said he >was anxious to see all proper safeguards in the bill against any wrongdoing. At the same time he did not suegest any was possible or probable, rfc suggested that Mr. Harris should substitute section 181 of the Municipal Corporations Act for the Public Works Act section, the former being applicable and giving effect to Mr. Harris' suggestion. This course was adopted, and with this amendment the bill was read a third time and passed.