HAWKE’S BAY RIVERS CONTROL.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 202, 14 August 1911, Page 5

HAWKE’S BAY RIVERS CONTROL.

PUKAHU WARD IN REVOLT.

SEVERANCE TO BE ASKED FOR.

A meeting of ratepayers in the Pukahu ward of the Hawke’s Bay Rivers District was held in. the Pukahu schoolroom on Saturday afternoon to consider what action ; should be taken in reference to the I Central Rivers Board. About sixtyj five ratepayers, including a number 'of ladies, were present, and Mr. f. Tanner was voted to the chair. j LETTER FROM MR. E. J. WATT. After explaining the object of I the meeting, Mr. Tanner read a ; letteer from Mr. E. J. Watt stating, ; inter alia, that if it was proposed I that the whole area now included I in the Central Rivers Board should ) be rated onGovernment valuation j for the purpose of carrying out the I engineers’ report or any other t scheme, then the Pukahu board • had been | Cajoled or Coerced i into the Central Rivers Board on ■ guarantees and statements that i were incorrect. He understood ■that when the Bill for the- Central ! Rivers Board was allowed to pasts : through Parliament, Pukahu was ' only included because the Govern- ■ ment declined to pass the Bill un- ! less all the local boards joined in ; for the first year, but that Pukahu ! was, through its members, to have i sole control of the existing works ;at Roy’s Hill. Pukahu was not to 'be rated except for works within i its own district, and was to be • allowed to retire from the Central • Board at the end of the first year, ! if the two former conditions were ■ not found to work amicably. It j might be said that the Pukahu ; ratepayers were selfish in opposing any' good general scheme ,aud he for one would support any general good scheme, providing it was go ; ing to be equitably financed. But to say that the Pukahu district was ;to pay close on two-fifths of the costs of any such scheme was manifestly unfair, and he thought the ratepayers of the Pukahu dis- ! trict also only opposed things on those grounds. Either the matter ’ was one for the Government to : deal with in the interests of the country- or it was a matter to be done for the public welfare of Hawke’s Bay. in which case Na- ' pier, Napier South, Hastings ami all the land contributing to or ef- ' fecting the various watersheds should join, or it was a matter for . the districts affected in proportion ;to the money to be expended in ' each district. The river question, like the harbour question, or rather ' the solution of both, must eventually be solved in the best interests of Hawke’s Bay, but they must ■ get the absolutely best possible scheme financed and must have un- . anirnity of opinion in favour of it to do any good. He thought the . chairman of the Central Board had been too precipitate in his proposals at the last meeting of the j board. He had no ctoubt that there ! were solutions of both the river : and the harbour question, but the ratepayers must be convinced not coerced, in both cases.

Mr. E. J. Watts' letter covered a cheque for £2O to a-ssist in disbursing the expenses of any action the meeting may decide upon in the matter.

Mr. Hugh Campbell's Letter. The Chairman next read a letter from Mr. Hugh Campbell, who stated that there was absolutely no necessity for Pukahu ward being responsible for any interest on loan money. The old Pukahu Board had never required a higher rate than one farthing in the £, and of late years only required a farthing rate every second year and out of that they handed the new Central Board a credit balance of nearly £-100. With the additional area included in the Pukahu ward, one-eighth of a penny in the £ each year should cover all expenditure and give the board a good subsidy towards keeping the river mouth open, besides assisting to clear the willows out of the old river bed. Some gentlemen in giving evidence at Wellington made it appear that the embankment at Roy’s Hill was responsible for sending the water on the other people Enver down. He had had charge of these banks for nearly fourteen years, and only in June. 190-2. did the water even reach the bottom of the embankments. Had there been no embankments they should only have had an overflow tor about twelve hours in that time, and the river was never in high, flood all that time.

* Pukahu Members’ Views. Mr. G. Purvis said a preliminary meeting had been held at Hastings on Monday last when it was dei aided to call a public meeting and uet legal opinion on points in the Bill in which they were not quite . clear. Mr. Scannell was present ' to answer any questions.

Mr. Talbot said that when the Bill was passed through the House they were given to understand that they were properly safeguarded from any undue share of the cost of river protection. It seemed to him they had been misled and they really had no safeguards, excepting in relation to reclamation, a work in which Pukahu was not interested to any extent. The position they were in was a very serious one for Pukahu district. The engineers had recommended an expenditure or £85,000 for the protection of the river district and out of this Pukahu had to contribute nearly two-fifths. They had not to go further than the report to see the unfairness of the position. It was true that a sum of £250 had been recommended for work at Roy’s Hill, but £lOO of this was for maintenance. This money had been allotted on. the representations of Messrs. McLean, Purvis and himself. He had said at the time that anything that was done there, Pukahu would be responsible for. and he impressed on the engineers the necessity for this work, but in face of this, only £l5O was allowed. The position was that the Pukahu district stood liable for a sum of about £32,000. that was on the Government valuation of the whole of the district, and it seemed to him by the Bill they had no means of getting out of it. At the last meeting of the Central Board, they had been asked to sanction that amount of money, and to adopt the report within twenty-four hours. He considered a little time should have been allowed to consider their position. He was under the impression that Pukahu was safeguarded and mentioned this, but was simplylaughed at, and told they were liable for a full share of the cost of the scheme. If such was the case the position of Pukahu was a very serious one. For their action in opposing the adoption of the report, he and the Qther representatives of the ward’ had been subjected to almost a scurrilous criticism by the newspapers, and it had been said that they were of no further use to the board, but he contended that if sitting in silence and accepting the proposals of the board was of no use, then they certainly had ceased t-o be of no use to the board. (Applause.) Mr. Purvis and himself had opposed the adoption of the report, but the board in their ■wisdom, declined to give any time for consideration, and the inclination was to rush the thing through" as quickly as possible.

General Discussion, Mr. T. Tanner said that considering the Pukahu Board had handed the Centrad Board a credit balance of £4OO, it seemed a very modest request to ask for £l5O. The £4OO would be sufficient to keep the bank in order for three years. The clause most affecting the district was clause 12, which contained two divisions. In the expenditure on flood prevention the whole district was liable, but under the improving clauses, Pukahu was not liable unless the

consent of the ratepayers was obtained. Mr. Purvis said the chairman of the Central Board had informed him that a loan could by carried by a bare majority. He (the speaker) understood that it had been left to the Commissioners’ powers to put in a differential rate in the Bill, but this had not been done.

Mr. Frank Pimley said the Pukahu ward would have no influence in raising a loan with five wards against them. They could reclaim all Papakura and Waitangi, and as long as they did not call it reclamation they could call on Pukahu for their share. There was nothing definite about anything. The Pukahu ward contained £29,500 acres ■with a capital value of £799,769, or £27 per acre, which was by far the largest ward in the rivers district. He pointed out that although they were only paying one-sixteenth of a penny rate as against Omaranui’s seven-six-teenths. still they paid considerably more in rates than Omaranui. There was no community of interest, and the whole thing was carried by interested people. Although the Pukahu ratepayers had unanimously rejected the proposals in the Bill, their objections had never been placed before the authorities, and they had been forced into their present position. The History of the Bill.

Mr. Robert Wellwood said the thanks of the ratepayers of Pukahu was due to Messrs. Purvis and Talbot for the stand they had taken. Were it not for them the principle in the report would have been affirmed and the loan sanctioned. He knew a little of the antecedents of the Bill, because he was one of the delegates who wem to Wellington with a large petition against the inclusion of Pukahu in the Central Board. They might as well have stayed at home —the whole

thing was cut and dried before they went down. In giving evidence before a committee of the Upper House he haa been ■definitely told by a mmber that Pukahu would be protected from any special rates for loans raised by the Central Board, and any money collected in Pukahu would be expended there. He could not credit that a gentleman of such a standing would make such a misstatement. They had simply been sold, and it now" seemed that they were only exempt frosn rates on loans for re-> clamatiom They nad tried for three days to see Sir Joseph Ward, who had charge of the Bill ,but were prevented from doing so. At last they saw the Hon. Mr. Buddo, who said it was useless to do anything at that stage as the Bill had been passed by the Upper House and it was now only a formal thing for it to become law. He (the speaker) was in the House when the petition was read, and when Mr. Massey asked the Premier if there was any opposition to the Bill, the latter replied that it was only very slight. What was that, he asked . They knew what- it was, but he would not say it. Motion for Separation.

Mr. Purvis proposed that the ratepayers of Pukahu get up a petition to get a straight issue from the Goveinment for separation from the Central Board.

Mr. W. Bridgeman seconded An Explanation.

Mr. Mason Chambers said it was due to the meeting that he should explain what led to Pukahu going into the Central Board. He was chairman of the committee which was set up to get a Bill through Parliament embodying the control of the rivers in the low lying part of the district in a Central Board. It was first proposed that Taradale, Meanee and Clive should be amalgamated ,but someone suggested that the watershed to the sea should be included. He (the speaker )had pointed out that the voting power would lie with the people not effected, and they would only defeat their own object by including them. The same thing applied to Pukahu. They had very little interest with the property below. But at a meeting held at Pukahu it was said that if Pukahu interests were properly safeguarded they were prepared to join in. He was glad of this because it ensured the success of the Bill. Certain clauses which would have protected Pukahu had been rejected or deleted. These were as follows :—

Sub-clause 3 of Clause 12.— “Provided further that the Pukahu Ward shall be deemed to be a distinct and separate district for the purpose? of any poll which may be taken under the last-cited Act. on any proposal to levy a special rate as aforesaid, and any such proposal shall be deemed to be carried or rejected in the said ward according to the recorded votes of the ratepayers thereof, and the result of the poll in the said ward shall not be affected by the votes of the ratepayers of any other ward or wards recorded for or against the same proposal.”

Clause 15. — : The following special provisim,.- shall apply to the Pukahu VVa,<! (in this section referred to as the said ward 7 ): (a) Every general rale shall be made and levied separately with* in the said ward, and the amount •»f every rate, whether general or separate, levied within the said ward shall be determined by re ference to the estimated exp mditure therein during the period f<>r which the rate is iimdr . y> all rates collected by the board within the said ward, and ail other income derived by them from the. said ward, whether from property situate therein or otherwise howsoever, shall be applied and expended for the sole and exclusive benefit of the said ward ; provided that the board shall be at liberty to retain in each year out of the rates and income aforesaid, the cost of collecting and recovering the same, and also such sum of money (not exceeding in any case £-• —) as may be reckoned a fair and reasonable contribution on the part of the said ward towards the general expenses incident' to the administration of this Act; (e) the board shall keep a separate account showing the income and expenditure received and incurred by them in each year in inspect of the said ward, ami 11> s account, shall be shown in every balance-sheet that shall be settled and published by the board in accordance with the principal Act; (di the said ward shall not be liable for the repayment of any moneys that may be borrowed by tin- board for any purpose mentioned in section 1! of this Act. n >r shall any special rate be levied within the sail! ward or within any portion thereof. to provide f ir the paynmiil of interest or of interest- and sinking fund in respec! of any moneys so borrowed : (e) tin 1 provisions of section 12 of this Act shall not apply to the. sai<l ward : ff) (!i the (lovernor

may ar any time, on pi t ition signed by not less than, two-thirds of tin- ratepayers of the said ward praying for the abolition thereof, ami on production of such evi-

dence as he may require in support of the said petition, by proclamation abolish the said ward, and thereupon the said ward shall cease to form a part of the district ; (2) the provisions of section 6 of the principal Act. shall, nmtat.is mutandis, apply to any petition presented to the Governor in pursuance of this section; Ci) before issuing any such proclamation as aforesaid, the Governor may require to be satisfied that the inclusion of the said ward within the district is unnecessary for the purposes of this Act. and that the object* of this Act can be fully attained notwithstanding the severance of the said ward from the district ; (4) in. and by the same proclamation the Governor may. if he thinks lit. declare that the said vvuird shall be from thenceforth or as from a date to be mention-

ed in the proclamation, lie a district for the purposes of part I of the Land Drainage Act. 190 S, and his declaration in that behalf shall be effectual to constitute the said ward a drainage district accordingly ; (5) the publication in the New Zealand Gazette of any such proclaxnation as aforesaid shall be conclusive evidence that all acts and things have been

done. and that ail events have happened necessary to enable the : Governor to issue the proclamation.” Continuing, Mr. Chambers said that, from the- foregoing clauses. Pukahu was given absolute protection. but the Bill passed by Parliament was not their Bill, but a ! Government Bill, and the clauses I for the protection of Pukahu had; evidently been reject ed and their | suggestions discarded. Section (b); of clause 15 showed that Pukahul would help to pay clerical and | oilier expenses incurred ifi collect-! ing the rates, otherwise they were ;io be treated as a separate body. > In giving evidence'before the committee of the Upper House he had , pointed out that Pukahu was in a . different position to other war is, land consequently it should be spe- ' cially protected. He thought they | ■ had little hope of obtaining sever- j ! ancc from the Central Board, and J ■he would move, as an amendment, ; ’’That this meeting of ratepayers : of the Pukahu Ward of the Hawke’s I Bay Rivers District, while approvi ing generally of the engineers’ ' scheme, requests their representatives to have any loan that may be required to carry out the work re1 commended by the engineers anj portioned in proportion to the ' benefits to be. derived, and if Puka- ' hit is to be benefitted. a separate loan for its share be raised over . the Pukahu Ward.” Further Discussion.

Air. Purvis said that was his ali ternative if the Government refused to grant severance. Fie pointi ed to the serious position the Tara- . dale ratepayers would be placedin ; if extensive loans were raised owing to the high valuation of their ward.

Mr. George AV ilson-Warren said they had three good grounds for ■ complaint : (I) the haste with which ' (lie Lil! was passed through the House (2) their representatives who were sent to Wellington did not get a fair hearing, ami (3) the action of the lioard in rushing the report through. ■ Dealing with the first Complaint, the sjieaker said the bill , was hurried through Parliament for the benefit of those mtere.st ed. and not Pukahu. and those people ■ should pay. It was impossible for | I heir delegates to get a hearing at 1 Wellington because it had been promised to other representatives . that tiic bill would be passed. The Government would not hear their . objections. The action of the i board in rushing through the engineers’ report was for the benefit of ■capitalists who had large interests at stake and wanted their land dratmal. The meeting must either ; approve of the action of Air. R. J). D. McLean and disapprove of the action of the other sitting members for the ward, or vice versa. His opinion was that the meeting would : support Messrs. Purvis and Talbot. ! Air. Chambers said he quite un- ■ derstood that a ratepayer outside the Pukahu Ward would not like to i see money expended in. the Pukahu ward charged to his own district. It would be impossible to 'carry a. li'itui against, Pukahu, because they . held two-fifths of the ratepayers. and a three-fifths majority was necessary. In reply to Air. Warren, who had said they had gone to Wellington .with ulterior motives. Air. Awunbers said he Was one of the <!< legates, and he knew of co such motives They had only gone in ; the interests of the district. The Clive Board had sent a very im- ; proper circular to Wellington re- : fleeting on members of the connntt- ; tee, and stating that the bill w r as ; being urged through for land , speeculation motives only. He had

I asked the chairman to either withi draw or substantiate these insinu- ! ations, but he had done neither. ! In reply to Mr. Cook, Mr. Chambers stated that Havelock was u >t i included hi the Central Board 1 ecause the- boundaries of the .listriot h;;d been taken as they formerly ‘ existed. ; Mr. Frank Pimley said if the ! amendment was carried it would j mean in effect that the Pukahu ; Ward would be an encumbrance i grid not a benefit to the Central • Board. Their three representatives ' would, as it were, be only tampering with other people’s affairs. ; They wanted a unanimous resolution to be cut out of the board.

■ Mr. W. Bridgeman said that from : rhe amendment it would appear | that the Pukahu ratepayers approved of the engineers’ report, but he did not think such was the case. If the amendment was carried, it , was only binding on the present ! members of the board, and the next ‘ board might overthrow that arj rangement. He supported the | petition. • Mr. McLean Resents Imputations. Mr. R. D. D. McLean said, in 1 reference to what had been stated ' regarding the loan, he had con- ! suited the solicitors to the board on I what had now been proposed by j Mr. Chambers. He did not know { that Mr. Chambers was bringing J this proposal before the meeting, | and he had gone to the solicitors more for his own information than

anything else. The solicitors’ opinion was that the board could raise, a loan in any particular ward in which the loan was to be expended. Continuing, Air. Ale Lean said he had heard a lot of loose talk, and ieflections had been cast: on certain people, not excluding himself. Mr. VVarren had imputed that certain people had gone to Parliament to get the bill through to benefit a number of people, and had approached certain members of Par lianient in a hole-and-corner way. He gave this an absolute denial. A committee of the Legislative C ouncil was set up to consider the bill, and he, in common with other representatives from the district, had given evidence. Amongst the Were Mr ’ ,J - N - William* All. Burnett (Government engineer) and others. Their evidence was taken down in shorthand, and he would be only too pleased for the ratepayers to peruse it. There was certainly no hole-and-corner business. Air. Chambers and himself did see the Premier and asked him to give facilities to get the bill through, but the details of the bill were not gone into. If the clauses they had drawn up had been passed into law, the bill would have been a very different one to the one that was now on the statute book. He was a ratepayer in Pukahu, and he thought they had a right to better treatment from the Legislature wflien the bill was before the House. The report which had been placed before the Legislative Council by the committee was to the effect that they had carefully considered the bill, called numerous witnesses, who generally agreed as to the terms of the bill, and in view of the dangers from floods they recommended that the bill be passed. Practically the bill as passed was a bill passed by the committee and Legislative Council in spite of the evidence that had been given. Air. Robert Wellwood's evidence had been ignored. He (the speaker) had told the Legislative Council that, as far as Pukahu was concerned, the work done in their district had given complete satisfaction to the ratepayers. The Hon. Air. Anstey had replied that the Pukahu district was in the catchment area, and would have to come in with the rest of the district. The ratepayers could have sent as many petitions as they liked to Wellington, said Air. McLean, hut the Legislature was determined to make one district. Regarding the rushing through of the engineers’ report, he could assure them that the scheme was not going to bo rushed through Before anything could be done by the Centraf Board, a schedule of works would have to be placed before them. That might apply to the whole of the works in thereport, ortoonly a comparative1\ small amount. It did not necessarily mean the board was going to adopt the whole of the scheme. Jhey had power to reject any portion. It was impossible to rush the matter through, because they had to coihe before the ratepayers. If toe biii as read by Air. Chambers and himself had been passed, they would have been in a very different position to-day. For many years he hail been in favour of having a district by itself outside the Ngaruroro, instead of having four or five boards, but the Legislature said the bill would not be allowed to pass unless Pukahu was included.

(Owing to a few people indulging in conversation while Mr. McLean was speaking, some of his remarks hbout reclamation work were not heard at the reporters’ table.) No Ulterior Motives. Mr. Robert Wellwood said he could assure the ratepayers that neither Mr. Chambers nor Mr. McLean had gone to Wellington with any ulterior motives. Mr. McLean: “I’m very pleasedto hear it. Continuing, Mr. Wellwood said he knew who had done so, but it was not necessary to mention any names. Mr. Warren also disclaimed any intention of imputing that Mr. Chambers or Mr. McLean had any ulterior motives, but two things were very obvious: one was that those in favour of the bill could get a hearing, but those against could not. Motion for Severance Petition Carried. At this stage Mr. Chambers suggested that his amendment should be made a separate motion. This was agreed to. Mr. David Scannell explained that the order of procedure wuld be that the Governor would appoint a commissioner to consider the petition, just as they had done in other petitions for severance in the Borough of Hastings. Evidence would be heard from both sides, and the commissioner’s report would be acted on.

Mr. Chambers’ motion was then put and lost, and Mr. Purvis’ motion in favour of petitioning for severance was carried almost unanimously.

The meeting concluded with a vote of thanks to the chairman.