Nash Promises Probe Into Kaitaia Drainage Question

Northern Advocate, 14 February 1940, Page 2

Nash Promises Probe Into Kaitaia Drainage Question

After inspecting the Kaitaia drainage area from Pukepoto road on . Thursday morning, Mr Nash received a strong deputation in the Kaitaia Dairy Company’s office in the afternoon, when the case for relief from the drainage rate was ably put by Messrs C. B. Michie, E. R. Bird and other speakers. The Minister kept fairly closely to the position he had previously taken up, but acknowledged that new light had bec-n thrown upon the whole question. Tins might have some effect on the final decision reached. He promised an inquiry by the committee which will take into consideration the betterment principle. He held firmly to the view he formerly expressed that individual ability to pay should be investigated. Drainage Committee’s Case. “The Drainage Committee finds a wide divergence of approach to the drainage rating problem as between your department and ourselves,” said Mr Michie, addressing the Minister. “We interpret our mandate from the ratepayers to embody an attempt to have present capital charges and arrears written off, for the following reasons:— “(a) The district is unable to meet such a charge. “(b) The benefits claimed for the drainage works have not in fact been achieved. “(c) A poll of ratepayers on the proposal was not taken at any time, but control was assumed by the Government then in office, and ratepayers of that day could not obtain information as to details of the proposals and costs. “Therefore we are not debtors. “Since we did not incur the expenditure we disclaim liability, and the relief we seek is not in the nature of financial assistance.” Mr Nash Sums Up. Mr Nash said that he found that in 1903 the first representations were made from the district, urging that something be done with regard to land drainage, and those representations were continued in a spasmodic way to 1910. In 1913 a drainage board was set up, which was to raise finance for the purpose of draining the swamp. Had this board been successful the Government would not have come into it. In 1912 the Swamp Drainage Act was passed, and following that the Government decided to do the work, those benefiting to be rated to meet the cost. The work commenced in 1916 and lasted for a number of years. Whether the money had been wisely or unwisely spent, the cost to the Government up to March 31 last was £385.000. Cost of Undertaking. The actual loan expenditure was £224,000 and interest on the money borrowed totalled £161,000. + The work was carried out but not quite to completion.

In 1926 a commission sat and, after examining all the facts of the drainage problem, recommended that the cost in excess of £125,000 be borne by the Government. In 1929 another Government commission sat, and after discussions it was decided to write down the ratepayers’ capital liability to £68,000. The local ratepayers were to pay 30 per cent, and the Government 70 per cent, of the cost. The maintenance costs totalled £B2BO. and £4290 had been collected, as much coming from Crown as from private lands. Terrific Pressure. In 1938, before the general election, terrific pressure was brought to bear, but at that time he could not listen to representations on the matter. Mr Semple came round in February of last year and Mr Langstone a little earlier than that, and they all discussed the matter. Again representations were made, and for the ratepayers it was said that with mortagages and other charges against the land it was not possible to meet the drainage rate and get a decent; living. The Mortgage Adjustment Commission could deal with such cases and had power to write down mortgages. Agitation for Relief. Following the conclusion of the sittings of the commission, the agitation for relief from drainage liability was still maintained, and in April last year he promised to set up a committee to consider each case, taking into consideration the findings of the Mortgage Adjustment Commission. Drainage Board Objects. The Drainage Board said no, and that the committee should not go into individual cases, but offered to suomit typical cases on which they wished a decision formed. He would not mind the committee investigating the betterment principle and reporting back. If there had been wastage in carrying out the drainage scheme that could be investigated. The expenditure by the Government so far had been £5 to £1 by the ratepayers, and no section of the community could ask the Government to remit charges legally owing by particular individuals without disclosing why.

Equity Destruction Not Desired

The Government did not want to destroy equity, and even if the money had been badly spent it was not sufficient to say that the flood menace still existed. Though not abolished, it had been reduced. Would Make a. Difference. Replying to Mr Sid Puckey, who said there had been no agitation between 1903 and 1910, nor any meeting of ratepayers prior to 1910, when a committee was set up, Mr Nash said that if there was anybody who could prove that the ratepayers did not want the Government to do the job it would make some difference. Mr Puckey: Our scheme was to put a canal through from Waipapakauri to what is now the small farm settlement, at an estimated cost of £BOOO.

At the Beginning. Mr T. S. Houston said he was the only one present who had anything to do with the first real work of draining the swamp. An association was formed in 1910 for the purpose of having an outfall drain from Tangonge Lake. His father was in the House of Representatives at the time and got the Minister to have a rough survey made. The surveyor said it was possible to get a good outfall at Waipapakauri. A drainage area had been marked out, and when the Kaitaia Drainage Act was passed they were asked to appoint two members to represent the area on the Drainage Board and the Government appointed Mr Skeet (chairman) and Mr Campbell (acting-chairman). The board had no finance and at its first meeting members were asked by Mr Skeet to sign a joint-and-several for the purpose of taking levels. This was to cost £SOO. The Government then decided that it would find the money and do the job itself. The ratepayers were never consulted and had never been asked to sanction expenditure.

Unsuccessful Obstruction. He and Mr A. W. Masters had tried to get the work held up. but the Government insisted on proceeding. Under the board’s scheme an outfall drain was to be made, and each individual property-owner was to provide his own subsidiary drains. The Government scheme was a failure. If it had been a success every acre of land in the swamp would bo helping to bear the burden of rates. The position was that those on the outside of, the swamp were called upon to pay a very big rate and the swamp itself was returning nothing. Only those who had benefited should pay rates. In reply to Mr Nash, Mr Houston said that a classification board went round and decided what class of land was in the scheme. Mr Nash: There was the right cl objection. What Messrs Puckey and Houston has said had been helpful. It could be accepted that the ratepayers could not carry out the scheme, and that there was a case for the Government taking over, but the ratepayers should have had a say. He could not say how much politics had come into it. Mr E. R. Bird said that the agitation just before the last general election had been forced upon the ratepayers by the conditions existing at the time. Settlers could not pay the drainage rate and preserve the equity they had helped to build up. Mr Nash: If we reduced it to a general benefit, should the rate then be met?

Mr Puckey: If general betterment could be proved I would stand by it that all should pay. He was quite prepared to pay for the benefits received. Mr Nash: We want to be scrupulously fair to you as well as to the general taxpayer. By being generous to you we may make someone else pay who should not pay. It is not a question of destroying equity, and individual cases should be heard. He still thought ’they should have the inquiry suggested by him, and they could ask the committee appointed to inquire into the betterment and give power to deal with individuals. He was willing for a member of the committee to be associated with the inquiry.