BOARD’S PLEDGE

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 230, 28 August 1929, Page 2

BOARD’S PLEDGE

~ MANAWATU-OROUA SCHEME. STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN. The motives for the proposed amending legislation conferring certain powers on the Manawatu-Oroua River Board were again discussed last evening, when ratepayers in its district met at liarere. The chairman of the board (Mr W. S. Carter) was in attendance, together with the board’s solicitor, Mr P. E. Baldwin. After some discussion, suggestions were made that alterations to the terms of the Bill might be effected, to the satisfaction of all parties, and a sub-committee was set up with a view to taking steps in that direction. In explaining the attitude of the ratepayers, Mr Martyn Abraham stated that the underlying principle of the amendment was to empower the board to define separate areas and confine the expense of any works undertaken and payment for compensation to those immediately concerned. At the present time the board had power to levy' separate area rates, but no power to confine compensation payment to any separate area. The principle of the Bill was perfectly sound, but he suggested that the power being conferred had two dangers. Firstly, the board would have placed in its hands a tremendously powerful weapon in being able to define a separate area with unlimited rating power within it. That would be all right if it was exercised in the right manner, but the ratepayers nad no safeguard in that respect beyond the board’s word. The other danger to which he referred, stated Mr Abraham, more particularly concerned the ratepayers in any separate area formed, as they could be saddled with rates to any extent without their sanction or consent. That, however, might be overcome by providing the machinery to obtain the ratepayer’ sanction to any separate area scheme. If the board could assure the ratepayers that it intended to confine its additional powers to certain specific works and no others, then the speaker considered that there could be no possible objection to obtaining the consent of the ratepayers before involving any separate area, or the whole of the board’s district, in compensation rates. The Bill gave to the board the power to nibble at the main scheme until it gradually completed the greater part of its policy. The procedure of the Local Bodies Loans Act could be applied so far as obtaining the consent of the ratepayers was concerned. If the power being sought by the board was properly used, it would be a distinct benefit and not a disadvantage to the ratepayers in the Kairanga district, but there was a fear in the minds of those ratepayers that it might be abused and he hoped that Mr Carter would be able to dispel that fear. BOARD’S INTENTION EXPLAINED. Speaking on behalf or the ManawatuOroua River Board, Mr Carter stated that it welcomed constructive criticism such as had apparently been made. The board was anxious to do its best for all the ratepayers. The amendment was suggested through the Makerua Board making an application to the Manawatu-Oroua River Board to eliminate a hairpin bend which was causing considerable trouble. The board was not prepared to' involve its whole district in claims for compensation, and acting on legal advice had decided that an amendment to the existing legislation was necessary to overcome the difficulty. If an alteration in the proposed clauses was wanted, the board would be pleased to make it in order to overcome any difficulty raised. The whole scheme was to protect the ratepayers from any possibility of rating for compensation for work from which they did not receive any benefit. Mr P. E”. for the ManawatuOroua River Board, intimated that he wished to make it clear that the amendment would not increase the board’s power to define special areas. It could already do that under the 1923 Act. The suggestion came from Makerua for the board to do certain work primarily benefiting its area, but also helping tiie upper reaches of the Manawatu district, because it was a small step towards facilitating the discharge of the water, which was the main object of the River Board’s scheme. It was considered unfair, however, that, if the work was done primarily for the Makerua and part of the Moutoa, those higher up should have to assume any liability. The board had come to the conclusion that Makerua could not provide an indemnity and had decided that the fairest policy -would be to obtain the power to rate the separate area for compensation for works carried o.ut for its own particular benefit. Even if the amendment was rejected by Parliament, the board could still do the work, but the liability for compensation payments, instead of being limited to the district concerned, would be over the whole of the River Board’s rating area. The bill was merely designed to throw the burden directly on the land reaping the benefit. The principle was a fair and just one. There was no such thing as unlimited rating involved. The board had first to form an estimate of proposed works and then to decide how they were to be paid for, hut it was thought expedient, instead of rating those in the special area, that they should have the power to ask the board to raise a special loan. He gave an assurance that there was nothing sinister in the omission to make reference to the question of publication of estimates, and if it was any satisfaction to the ratepayers to see in advance their liability for extra rates, then they could be notified. The amending Bill incorporated certain provisions of the Local Bodies Loans Act. Any suggested amendment which did not interfere with the principle at stake would be welcomed. The board was not going to undertake any work for a separate area unless it was satisfied that it could stand the burden. COST OF WORK. Mr Andrew Guy stated that all were opposed to the gigantic scheme winch had been proposed by the board. If it intended to make a beginning, thoee present, as sensible men, considered that it would end in failure. That was the position. The chairman of the board stated that the works covered by the amendment had nothing to do with the big scheme excepting one or two bends which would be cut off. It was considered cheaper to cut off the bends than to embark 011 protective banking wo“ks. , The board had laid it down that it would not accept less than the whole of the Makerua area for rating purposes. Mr Baldwin pointed out that if the board ultimately decided to proceed with the large scheme it would be only fair to purchase from the special area any completed section of work, although it would be rated proportionately for the whole work. The board was not anxious to saddle anyone with anything. It was only complying with a request made because Makerua was faced wii.h what looked like a hopeless position. The bocrd, stated Mr Carter, had pledged itsjlf that it would not go on with the new large work without the

consent of the ratepayers, and without "sr“ Carter: That is what you " ill Sir Abraham said that the Act un doubtedly gave the board power to carry out the big scheme pmcemeai though he did 'not suggest that that was ite intention. , , ~ Vw-tard Mr Carter reiterated that the boar had given a pledge, but ihe was in the hands of the ratepayers at th Mr n Guyf Wha n t is the cost of the Pr^° S Carterfit is estimated at about £ Mr°’Baldwin : And includes the purchase of 37 acres of land wo soli it is en*^We t< are the dumping ground f°r water from one and adialf million acj of land,” stated Mr Carter, who added that every affort was being n‘ at * c ,.. make the Government realise its obii ga Mr n Abraham pointed out' that the board was given a loophole to create other separate areas and carry o other pieces of work contained m the major scheme. Mr Carter: There is no danger ot There was not much for the discussion, it being agreed that the meeting had been helpful in elucidating tne points at issue, and a sub-committee was set up to consider making certain alterations to the amendment to ;be submitted to the board for its consideration.