ROTORUA-TAUPO LINE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XX, Issue 238, 26 September 1930, Page 8

ROTORUA-TAUPO LINE

PETITION FOR RESUMPTION OPINIONS EVENLY DIVIDED. A CLOSE DIVISION. Wellington, Sept. 25. The Public Petitions Committee, reporting to the House to-day on a pcti tion praying for tho immediate resumption of w'ork on the RotoruaTaupo railway line, stated that i,)t had no recommendation to make, as a ques tion of policy ws involved. Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Ref., Biecarton) expressed tho opinion that it had not bceu possible tor tho committee to give the same consideration to this subject as had been given by the committee of last session. He believed it possiblo to open up large areas of laud in the thermal region to tho economic advantage of tho Dominion. Mr A. W. Hall (Ref., Hauraki) said there had been a very even division of opinion among members of tho committee which uad considered tins petition. Quite a large section believed the possibilities of this line should be considered by the committee recently appointed to investigate all railway lines under construction. He moved as an amendment that the report bo referred back to the commit tee for further consideration.

Mr C. A. Wilkinson (ludep., Egmont) said ho hoped the Government would stand to its decision not to go on -with the line. Ho did not think tho annual loss to the country that it would involve could be justified. The area would be adequately served by a good road. Mr P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Cen tral) asked that the House should be given the benefit of a full report on the possibilities of the land in this area. The House should be in a posi tion to judge what justification there was for au expensive railway or for an expensive road. Sir Apirana Ngata said it was possible to be an enthusiast about the settlement of the pumieo land and at the same time still be restrained concerniug the construction of a railway line. The difficulty relating to settlement in tho area had been tho existence of bush sickness, and until that problem had been overcome tho work could not be pushed ahead. Tho Government was experimenting with the country and that stage' had not yet been passed. For many years afforestation companies had been operating in the area and a lot of land was already under trees. Tho Minister agreed that the question of the development of the land should be fully investigated. Mr D. Jones (Ref., Mid-Canterbury) complained that the House hau not been given the promised opportunity to discuss the report of the committee which considered the question last session.

MR RANSOM’S VIEWS. The ucting-Prime Minister said that a promise had been given that tho House would have an opportunity to consider the report early in the session, but tho business before the House then consisted of measures io be disposed of so as to enable .Mr Forbes to leave for the Imperial Conference. Since tho Prime Minister’s departure the Government had shown members every consideration. Ho had been surprised that no member had considered tho report of last year’s committee of sufficient importance to raise the question until the present juncture. Mr Ransome contended that the railway was not essential to the development of the country. Ho had not lost his conlideuce in tho development of the pumice belt; indeed he believed the future prosperity of New' Zealand to a large extent depended upon its development. The settlement of those portions of the country offered the best solution of tho unemployment problem that could be seen. Ho considered further that the time was not far distant when much of tho country regarded to-day as sheep and cattle tick would be brought into production. The Government was justified in tho experiments it was conducting. Mr F. Tye (United, Waikato) said the report of the committee last year had recommended that tho line should not be proceeded with. This recommendation had been reached after an exhaustive investigation. It had further been recommended that 10,000 acres of the best land in -his area should be settled as an experiment. Mr J. A. Nash (Ref., Palmerston North): How much has been settled?

Mr Lye: The Government has a scheme for settlement under way as the honourable member knows. It is impossible to settle 10,000 acres in one year.

Continuing, Mr Lye said that as a practical farmer he did not think that tho results even twenty years hence would justify building the railway. It was unlikely that it would bo possible to get adequate water supplies in many largo areas in the Taupo district. Mr A. M. Samuel (Ref., Thames) said the report of the committee of last session had been brought down on the casting vote of tho chairman, and ho understood this year’s recommendation had been decided upon also on tho casting vote of the chairman. Ho knew.from his own personal observation that there were vast areas of land in the district that were capable of successful and highly profitable development. He was going to vote for tho amendment, because while not wishing at the moment to state whether a railway or a road should bo utilised as a means of development, ho was of opinion that the House should be given an opportunity for a full discussion of the report of last year’s select committee. Mr C. H. Clinkard (United, Rotorua) said that many of tho members who had advocated the development of the district had been taken there in the flush of tho season. If tho land were as attractive throughout the year there would be no need for encouragement to bring about settlement. He believed any of the country suitable for development could be served satisfactorily by a good road,

and he ceertainly did not agree that the cost of a railway would be justified. SCHEME NOT WARRANTED AT PRESENT. After a number of other members had spoken, Mr J. A. MaePherson (United, Oamaru) replying, said the question before the committee had been whether it was advisable now to go on with the railway or not. There was not tho slightest doubt that if at some future date it became apparent that the construction of tho railway was warranted, whatever Government was in power would then go on with the scheme. It certainly was not warranted at the present time. Ho did not see that any good purpose eould bo gained by referring the report back to the committee. THE DIVISION LIST. Mr Hall’s amendment was rejected by 34 to 33. The following is tho division list:— For the Amendment (33). Ansell Macmillan Armstrong Martin Burnett Massey Chapman Nash, J. A. Dickie Nash, W. Endean Parry Field Samuel Fraser Savage Hall Semple H. Holland Stewart Henare Sullivan Holland, H. E. Sykes Howard Wait® Jordan Williams Kyle Wright Linklater Young Me Keen Against the Amendment (34). Atmore Macpherson Barnard Makitanara Bodkin Mason Broadtoot Munns Carr Munro Clinkard Murdoch Cobbo Ngata de la Perrelle O’Brien Donald. Polson Hawke Ransom Healy Rushworth Hogan Smith Langstone Stallworthy Lye Taverner Lysnar Veitch McDonald Ward McDougall Wilkinson