INQUIRY URGED

Grey River Argus, 23 October 1936, Page 4

INQUIRY URGED

WHAKATANE PAPER COY.

Enabling Bill Before Council

(Per Government Favour.) WELLINGTON, October 21. The Legislative Council met at 11 a.m., the Sumner (Borough Empowering Bill, and the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Amendment Bill were passed. A select committee reported on the Whakatane Paper Mills Limited .Water Supply Empowering Bill, and the report was adopted. The report of the Chairman, of the Committee on the Whakatane Paper Mills Limited Water Supply Empower ing Bill, was as follows; “.], have the honour, by direction of the Committee set up for the purpose of considering the Whakatane Paper Mills Limited Water Supply Empower iiif Bill, to report thereon os follows: 71) That it finds the allegation of the preamble proved to us satisfaction. ~ , (2) That it has carefully considered the Bill, clause by clause, and recom mends that the Bill be allowed to proceed with amendments. (3) That the amendment kn clause 12, is made in order to bring paragraph A in conformity with paragraph B of sub-clause (1). That the amen.■meat to new clause 25 A is inserted i t the request of the Health Department. in order to give power to impose on the Company conditions as to the disposal of waste products. (4-) That, whilst the Committee recognises that the management. of the affairs of the Company is of primary concern to the directors and shareholders thereof, and makes the foregoing recommendation, it desires 10 place on record that after hearing the evidence received, it is strongly of rhe opinion th’.it ir would be to the undoubted advantage of the Company before exercising the enabling rights, powers and privileges conferred o» F by the Bill, and proceeding with further operations, or taking further forward steps involving a large expenditure of money, that the directors and shareholders should have to guide the Company’s activities, projects or proposals, the advice and benefits oi a national investigation and report, as urged in the statement, submitted to the Legislative Council on September 17, 1936, by the Hon Mr Fagan on behalf of the Government. In this connection, the Committee desires to state that it pressed upon the representatives who appeared before the Committee on behalf of the Company to agree to such a prudent precautionary proposal, but the Committee regret that such consent was declined, the need for the passage of the Bill this session being insisted on by such representatives. Attention is hete drawn to the fact that the responsibility for any unsatisfactory and perhaps serious consequences that may result from the Comyiny not giving effect to the Commil tee’s precautionary proposal, as aforesaid, and' otherwise failing or neglecting to act in accordance with the beneficial advice given in the said statement by the Government, must remain that of the directors and shareholders.

Nothing herein shall lie construed to imply that the Committee, in mak ing the foregoing recommendation, sets its seal of approval on the C'omK'.ny's activities, projects and propos■:l.'.' The Committee endorses fully in all respects the hereinbefore mentioned definite information and warranted statement relating to this ißill, furnished to the Legislative Council by the Hon. Mr Fagan, on behalf of the Government.

Explaining the amendment to clause 12, the leader of the Council (lion. Al. Fagan) said that the Bill empowered a Company to open a road to lay mains, etc. If objection were made to the Company’s proposals and the objection wus considered unreasonable, the matter was to be referred' to a Magistrate, not to the Minister of Public Works, as the Bill formerly proposed. The Magistrate’s decision mast be final. This amendment was in uniformity with the rest of the clause, which stipulated that in the event of >i person requiring alterations in connection with road openings, which were deemed to be unreasonable, the matter was to be referred to a Magistrate, whose decision was to be final. The Council rose at 11.15 a.m., till 10 a.ni., on Friday.