HEATED DISCUSSION

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXI, Issue 4951, 4 February 1937, Page 5

HEATED DISCUSSION

RIGHT TO ANSWER SPEAKERS.

NOVEL PROCEDURE ADOPTED. A heated discussion followed on Tuesday evening upon Cr. Mackersey being refused the rieht to reply to speakers who had opposed the Borough Council's loan proposals. The matter was raised when, during question time, Cr. Mackersey rose to ask if he might reply to the criticisms made—it might not perhaps take the form of direct questions, but . Mr. O'Connell. I would prefer questions. I do not see that I can accept an address. Cr. Mackersey: Do I understand that a ratepayer has not a right to speak at this meeting? Mr. O'Connell appealed to Mr. Morton, who said that Mr. Mackersey had already had his opportunity to speak at the Council's meeting. No opportunity had been given anyone opposed to the loan to speak on that occasion. Cr. Mackersey: That is entirely incorrect. Full opportunity was given for anyone to speak. Mr. G. Elliott said that the Mayor should have taken the chair that evening, as he had been asked to do. The Mayor should be representative of all the citizens. If the Mayor had the right to refuse to take the chair, then the councillors should not have the right to proceed. Cr. Mackersey then asked the right to ask a question. This was granted. He asked if the meeting was one for ratepayers. Then was Mr. Elliott a ratepayer? Mr. Elliott admitted he was not, but said he was the representative of a body that was a large ratepayer. "And the more Mr. Mackersey says, the weaker his case will be," he concluded. Mr. O'Connell ruled that speakers should not introduce personalities. Function of Chairman. Cr. Isaac then asked permission to ask a question. That granted, he commented that a chairman should be impartial. Why then, had Mr. O'Connell, who was the chairman spoken in opposition to the proposals. Mr. O'Connell said that he had all the time intended to speak at the meeting. He pointed this out when he was asked to preside, and was told he might have his say and preside as well. Cr. Low: You have given your answer that a chairman may speak. I now ask that others have the right to speak—or are only those opposed to the loan permitted? Mr. O'Connell: Well, I am in rather an invidious position. I was asked at the last moment by the sponsors of the meeting to preside. I must ask Mr. Morton to make the point clear. Mr. Morton thereupon read the notice of the meeting. He construed from this it was a meeting to oppose the loan. Out of courtesy anyone would certainly be permitted to ask a question, but not to speak. Mr. Low moved a motion that the meeting adjourn, with the idea that those present remain to form a meeting .at which the ideal for which the British nation had always fought, free speech, might be enjoyed. Mr. O'Connell said he could not take this motion. Cr. Low took strong objection. "The motion is not out of order. It has been duly seconded and you will have to put it to the meeting," he said. "I take the most strenuous objection to a citizen being denied the right of free speech." Mr. O'Connell repeated that he would not accept the motion. He was only acting as chairman and Circular. Invitations. Cr. Isaac said that he had received a circular personally, addressed to him, asking him to attend the meeting as a ratepayer. He contended that gave him the right to speak. Then turning to the people he said, "I would like you to remain after this meeting is concluded, because I assure you something is going to happen afterwards!" Mr. Morton then moved a motion that in the opinion of ratepayers there that night the water loan proposals be turned down. It was seconded by Mr. Lorigan. Cr. Mackersey said he had attended a good many meetings in various parts of the country, but never yet had he attended a meeting in which a motion was accepted and no discussion on the other side permitted. Mr. Morton: "You have attended one to-night." However, he immediately withdrew the motion. No further questions were asked and Mr. O'Connell declared the meeting closed. A vote of thanks to the chairman was proposed by Mr. Morton and carried. Fresh Meeting Called. As soon as the chair had been vacated by Mr. O'Connell, Cr. Low proposed that a further meeting be held at which the Mayor be chairman. Cr. Low again took the strongest objection to the fact that no opportunity had been given for those with contrary views to speak. When at the meeting called by the Borough Council an invitation had been extended for ratepayers to speak, no one had availed themselves of it. Now when others wanted to speak, those who had failed to take advantage of that opportunity refused to let them do so.

After the Mayor had been elected to the chair, Mr. Morton asked if it true that he had invited anyone to speak at the Borough meeting. The Mayor: Certainly. I said anyone could speak so long as they only spoke once. Mr. Morton: I accept your verdict, but if anyone can throw cold water on our proposals, then let him. Mr. G. Elliott then objected to the Mayor refusing to take the chair at the first meeting, and asked why the Mayor and chairman of the Works Committee had not laid the Borough proposals before the ratepayers, as was their duty, instead of leaving it to two solicitors. He advocated a dam at the Viaduct. The first meeting was for those opposed to the loan, and no one else.

Cr. Low: Well, I received a circular asking me to come, and I did. At this stage Mr. Morton asked Cr. Mackersey why the ratepayers were not in possession of the facts as disclosed in the consulting . engineer's report he had read. Cr. Mackersey said that would take a little time to explain, and then delivered the address to the meeting which he had been refused the right to gi.ve previously. CR. RIACKERSEY'S REPLY. TACTICS OF OPPOSITION. Cr. Mackersey said that the manner in which the campaign against the loan had been conducted was most astounding. Many months ago details of the two schemes had been fully published. There was not one word of protest, except from Mr. T. O'Connell, who had written to the Chronicle. The Borough Council meetings were open to the public, yet no one had attended. At the recent public meeting the speakers ind'cated they would be pleased to a: swer criticism. There was no discussion, though discussion was asked for. Mr. Morton: Oh, no! Cr. Mackersey: I say yes—and nothing was heard of the criticism until to-night, the day before the poll. Mr. Morton had compared the Borough indebtedness with that of the Otorohanga County. This was hardly fair, especially as the Otorohanga County was only constituted in 1921, and many roads were metalled by the Public Works Department. The only fair comparison was to compare Te Kuiti's indebtedness with that of other boroughs having a population of between 2000 and 3000 people. Those in the Auckland province were given by Cr. Mackersey for 1935, as follows (populations in parentheses): Te Kuiti (2600), £62,765; Dargaville (2030), £112.939; Pukekohe (2580), £91,232; Cambridge (2220) £105,672; Te Awamutu (2020), £118,098; Northcote (2570), £86,179: Taumarunui (2650), £138,169; and the only one below Te Kuiti, Te Aroha (2550), £50,279. At this stage of the meeting Messrs. O'Connell, Morton and Lorigan left the hall. Mayoralty Election Statements. Mr. Morton had said that night that one of his main objectives was to keep down the indebtedness of the Borough. It was interesting to note, in the light of this, the speech he made in 1935, when he contested the Mayoralty, on the night before the elections. He was then reported to state that he was in favour of a modern sewage system and proper water reticulation of the Borough. These two schemes would cost at least £30,000. He quite sympathised with the remarks that had been made about the Rora Street rentals, but these were not the concern of the Borough Council. The matter was in the hands of the people of Rora Street. Recently, a meeting had been called by the. Chamber of Commerce with the idea of taking action under the Mortgagors Rehabilitation legislation and only six of those interested had attended. A great deal had been heard about the consulting engineer's report quoted by Mr. Morton, which stated that the present water supply was filthy and the worst in New Zealand. But Mr. Morton was a member of the Borough Council at the time the report was presented. Then when he stood for Mayor he stated the present source of supply ■would be sufficient for a number of years, provided that the leaks at the dam were stopped—and now he utterly condemned the present supply. Expert Advice.

As for the question of expert advice, he had a copy of the circular sent to absentee ratepayers which said the Borough Council went into the schemes with its eyes shut. Mr. Mackersey gave this an emphatic denial. Before the scheme was approved by the Loans Board it was inspected by Mr. L. May, a Public Works engineer with 28 years' practical experience, and who, after the Murchison earthquake disaster, was put in complete charge of the restoration and rehabilitation of the country. Mr. May spent a full day going over the scheme on the spot, checked the plans and specifications, and rang up Mr. Drake to compliment him on the fact that these were entirely correct. Then the scheme had been inspected by Mr. Butcher, who inspected all water supply systems in, New Zealand for the Fire Underwriters' Association, and on whose advice insurance premiums were fixed. He "0.K.-ed" the scheme.

For two days Dr. Turbott, of the Health Department, accompanied by Senior Inspector Terry, of Hamilton, and Inspector Wark, of Taumarunui, inspected the scheme and were perfectly satisfied. Nor had Mr. Morton mentioned anything about Mr. Greville Walkers' report in 1922, which, while recommending certain improvements, was perfectly satisfied with the present source of supply. Mr. Morton had said 100 guineas had been paid for the report quoted by him. This was not correct. That firm had made no charge, provided that if their scheme in whole or part were adopted, then they should be employed to supervise the work at the usual 5 per cent, fee! The scheme would have cost £II,OOO in 1924—today the cost would be £14,000 or £15,000, most of it over and above the scheme now contemplated. Those people who said they wanted to keep down the Borough indebtedness and then advocated a pumping scheme were talking nonsense, for to do the necessary work with a pumping scheme a loan of £35,000 or more would be necessary.

Mr. Lorigan had apparently spent a lot of money on toll calls to find out a ram was practicable. Yet not one of the three consulting engineers had recommended a ram —nor did he know of a ram supplying any town in New Zealand with water. Mr. O'Connell Criticised

"And now for Mr. O'Connell—Mr. Morton was fairly inconsistent but he was nothing to Mr. O'Connell," contended Cr. Mackersey. "When he talks publicly, he should remember that he might be reported, and that those reports can be looked up. In spite of all I know about Mr. O'Connell, I did not think he would have the effrontery to get up and contradict his own schemes.

"Mr. OConnell has condemned the present supply. In 1935 he stood for Mayor, and he then said that if the leaks were stopped, sufficient water would be available for the next 25 years. And now for the cream of the thing. In 1935 Mr. O'Connell said one thing required urgent attention, the main water supply pipe. This should be cement-lined at a cost of £3OOO. Now he complains this would reduce the diameter of the pipe and a 12in main would be necessary. Later, in May, 1936, he wrote to the Chronicle, and, after criticising the streets loan, said he was of opinion that the present source of supply would be sufficient for 20 years—he had reduced his total by five years. But he asked, had the cement-linirg of pipes been sufficiently tested—or was it just a plunge in the dark? He wrote this when only 12 months before he had got up on the public platform and said, 'That is the scheme and the way to do it.' That is Mr. O'Connell." Mr. Mackersey considered it unfortunate that Mr. O Connell should have made a'more or less veiled attack on the Borough staff. Though not a member of the Works Committee, Mr. Mackersey said he believed the Borough received good value for its money.

Mr. Drake was certainly not a civil engineer—few boroughs of the size of Te Kuiti could afford to employ one, but Mr. Drake had passed all his examinations except his final, and had much practical experience. He had surveyed and computed a water supply for the Borough of Whakatane, assisted in hydro-electric works there, arid had been assistant engineer for Mount Eden Borough Council for seven years, and was in complete charge for seven months while a water reticulation scheme was in progress. The Waitete supply was perhaps not perfect, but it had to be recognised that the other scheme would cost another £II,OOO. The present system was worn out; at the most it would last a little while, but the pipes were badly corroded, and if not reconditioned now, the Council would have to relay the pipes. That would cost a little more than double the cost of reconditioning. He knew that the people of Rora Street had an adequate supply, and if they were going to oppose the loan he could not argue against them very much, except to say this—the present scheme might go, especially because of the slip area, at any time. Water would be cut off for a fortnight at the very least, and if a fire started in Rora Street during that time, scarcely a building would not be reduced to ashes. While the Council was doing its best to give protection and service, the matter was one now entirely in the ratepayers' hands. The only question asked of Mr. Mackersey was one put by Mr. H. Higgins, who asked if fire-fighting pressure would be available at the top of the Mangarino and Awakino Roads. Mr. Mackersey said there would be firefighting pressure over the whole of the Borough except for, perhaps, a few houses on the highest levels.