THE DRAINAGE BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13843, 1 September 1908, Page 7

THE DRAINAGE BILL.

■ . y; .-■■''" '' ■ + '" '■' •■ ~ ';':■' •■:'.■ ■:■■ *.-i:^'^-.-;';; A LIVELY MEETING. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION. OBJECTIONS TO A BOARD. STRONG FEELING EXPRESSED. There was a lively discussion at a special meeting of the City Council yesterday morning regarding the question of a drainage board to control the drainage scheme of Auckland City and suburbs. The Council had unanimously declined to agree to a board upon which any other body than the City Council should have representation, but the city delegates to Wellington, as will be remembered, agreed to a form of representation, and this they had to explain to a somewhat offended Council yesterday. The discussion was, at times, a little lively and it was evident, from the start, that the delegates were in for " a heckling." There were present His Worship the Mayor (Mr. AM. Myers), and Messrs. J. Court, W. E. Hutchison, H. M. Smeoton, C. J. Parr, R. Tudehope, C. Grey, M. Casey. R. Farrell, G. Knight, J. Patterson, P. M. Mackay* L. J. Bagnall, A. J. Entrican, and W. C. Somers. The city engineer (Mr. Bush) and the city solicitor (Mr. T. Cotter) were also in attendance. ' THE MAYOR'S EXPLANATION.

The Mayor, in opening the proceedings, said that the delegates, before leaving for Wellington, distinctly understood they were not to deviate from the main principles of the Bill, and when Mr. Cotter and Mr. Bush went to Wellington the previous week, he (the speaker) distinctly instructed them to on no account concede the question \of representation. When he and Messrs. Bagnall and Entrican arrived in Wellington," it became quite clear that there were three lines of objection being urged by the objectors— firstly, absence ol representation ; secondly, the question of the basis of assessment; arid thirdly the objection coming from Orrkei. The delegates learned that it was impossible to get the Bill through, without giving representation, in the control of the drainage, to the contributing bodies. ' Mi-. Dickson, of Remuera Road Board, had \ been lobbying, and it was clear he had succeeded on the question of representation. The feeling of , tl.e whole Council had been opposed to giving representation to outside bodies in the carry out of the scheme, arid he had obtained the signatures of a number of the mayors arid chairmen of the. suburban bodies in favour of the Bill as drafted, and the chairman of the Harbour Board had furnished him (Mr. Myers) with a letter, which gave .evidence that the position in connection with Orakei was quite contrary to what was stated by the' objectors. ' '. .'.-.'

The Mayor then related, confidentially to the Council, a. number of matters in connection., with the Local Bills Com- . mittee.. He went on to say it became .:■ quite clear to the delegates from the City Council that they would have to concede representation, and the only thing , was to get that representation as favourable. _ to the city a* possible. -What the objectors wanted was a board on which the city .would have' had 1,1 representatives and the outside bodies 15, notwithstanding the fact that the, city was to pay two-thirds of the ,cost of : the drainage scheme, arid, if the question had been left to the House, probably the proportion would have been fixed that way. Then the objectors wanted to upset the basis of assessment,' and to have a basis of payment for benefits received, which would, of course,^'have left some local bodies in a hopeless position. The most important matter was to leave the basis of assessment as originally ~ intended, and the delegates agreed that, as the House would be. against.them 'on. the representation question, ',$ something ' would have to be conceded. The newboard- would be practically, confined to carrying out the details of the Bill, and although a different local authority was being created, it was a- local authority in the least objectionable ' form. As • one, member of the House had stated* they found that the Bill, in- the form it. was >'. introduced, was '"' as dead as a doornail," and the delegates had to face the question as to whether they were prepared to make 4 certain concessions to give the _ Bill another chance, or to accept the position as they found it. That would have meant putting off the the diainage of Auckland and its suburbs for another couple -of years. It was therefore agreed by the delegates to concede representation, and it was suggsted that the mayors of suburban .boroughs and the chairmen of road districts, together with the Mayor and councillors of Auckland should form the drainage board. That would give the Council 16 members, as against, the 11 suggested undei the other stem proposed. The board' would really only be carrying out matters of detail, and there would be no alteration in the scheme already decided upon. While that was granting representation to local bodies, it must, be admitted that, it was the least objectionable form in which they could have a drainage board. There would be no elections and no annual squabbling, as the Act would define everything. The counsel for the objectors was working for a board on which the city would have half the represent at and the suburban bodies half, and the delegates fountd themselves in the position of having to accept the responsibility of deciding whether they would have a Drainage Bill or not. It was only at the last moment that the Remuera delegates 'brought up the question of the two sewers, and the position taken up by Remuera in this respect was quite fair and just. : ( MR. PARR PROTESTS. Mr. Parr: What will the sewers cost? The Mayor: One will cost £1000, and the other is portion of the main drain required to take the One-tree Hill drainage. Personally, I have no hesitation in saying that under similar circumstances I would again act as I have done, and under the same circumstances Mr. Parr would have done the same thing. Mr. Parr: l I am afraid you are wrong. I would not have accepted a drainage board in any shape or form. The Mayor said that Mr. Parr's attitude over the assessment had led to a lot of trouble in Wellington, and the objectors were using Mr. Parr'-s statements as a lever. Owing to this, he (the Mayor) wired to Mr, Parr and received the following reply:—"l understand Parnell representative ha 3 stated that Mr. Parr was opposed to Drainage Bill because of non-representation. Kindly correct this mis-statement. I am against representation, and entirely in favour of Bill except one point. I favour a tribunal to fix contribution instead of the capital value basis, but will waive even that to get drainage." * Mr. Parr: That's plain enough. I am against representation. I would have waived the other point, but would not bavc granted representation. The Mayor: In our opinion the Board was of secondary importance. Mr. Casey: Why didn't vou drop the Bill? The Mayor: Because it would have been criminal on our part to have thrown back the drainage scheme for years. When I am.appointed as a delegate; I act according to my own judgment. Mr. Parr: Counter to the Council's resolution, " V The Mayor: Circumstances have to be faced as they arise. When -I was once asked what I would do as a delegate for the Chamber of Commerce in a certain • matter, , I replied that I would act according to my own judgment, and if the

Chamber did not like, that I would resign, and that, is the position I would take up it you asked me to record my vote against my own judgment. \ * v Mr. Parr: There's no need for'a City Councd fat all at that rate. -' The Mayor: Certainly. • ' , , Mr. Pair: Not if you are going to ignore ite resolutions. Why not have had the matter adjourned for a week instead, of stultifying the Council in this .Way J.' ■..■'"■■ ".v,/ r ..) ■:■'■,':*-, The Mayor: There was no time. We" had to go pefore the Local Bills Committee at once. ; * . Mr. Parr: 1 would have let the Bill £°-, • • . •,. v ■ • The Mayor: The citizens of Auckland would not have taken (that view. Mr. Parr: If the question had been put to the citizens of Auckland thev would not have stood a Drainage Board. I challenge you to put it to them to-mor-.row. it been a case of compromise all along the line, in which the city has been beaten. j The Mayor went on to say that the delegates saw they had to take the responsibdity of dropping the Bill or giving way to a modified form of representation. As sensible men- the delegates could not see any < justification for hanging up the Bill for several years, and took the responsibility of acting against the Council's instructions. He felt the setting up of '. such a board would hasten- Greater Auckland. REMUERA'S POSITION. In answer to a question, Mr. Bush said that through the main sewer being taken further out in Hobeon Bay, Remuera's position was not as favourable as under the line laid out by Mi. Midgley Taylor, and Remuera suggested that the scheme should include a sewer, from the main sewer, right up Portland Road. It was reasonable that a sewer should be laid to join with the reticulation in Remuera at that point- where Remuera sewage would have to be carried, by tunnel, under Victoria Avenue at Selwvn Road. The cost of that would be about £1000. The second sewer was to provide for portion of One-tree Hill district, which would have to drain through a deep gully in Remuera, and, on the same principle that where a sewer from any district passed through another district it was to be provided by the board, this sewer would have to be under the board's control. The principle was adopted at the conferences in Auckland before the Bill was drafted, but this sewer had been overlooked, through an oversight on his part, and attention had hot been called to it because Remuera was not represented at those conferences latterly. -That sewer would cost £6000 or £7000. Mr. Patterson : Do we understand that the main line has been altered to suit Remuera! ; Mr. Bush: No. Mr. Taylor's original | plan; showed a tunnel under Victoria i Avenue at almost the same point that ! Mr. Metcalfe proposed in a report to j Remuera Road Board. But now our main sewer is to be right out in Hobson ! Bay,"and it has been kept out to accommodate Parnell, and Parnell is the principal objector. The sewer from One-tree Hill would have to be provided by the board in any case. . Mr. Knight: Remuera, by going thor- ' oughly into objections, has* scored upon us.' V • • .. Mr. Parr: Yes, to the tune of £8000. Mr. Bush said he would have taken the i same stand. at the conferences before the I Bill, was drafted had Remuera been represented and called attention to the matter. The .main sewer had been kept out for Parnell's sake, because otherwise pumping would have been necessary in Parnell. ' Mr. Knight: Why do yon charge Remuera more than yon found it could drain its own district for? Mr. Rush : The city could drain its area cheaper than it can by joining in with the.other bodies, and Remuera- is in the ! same position. If the localities favoured by geographical position did hot assist in the general scheme, those not ' geographically favoured ; would be out of the scheme, because the cost to : them would be pro-, hibitive. ' ■:■*''■■■■''■ ' - , MR. BAGNALL'S VIEW. ', Sir. L. J. Bagnall said the Bill contained .13 important - points, arid had only? been altered in one, by the addition of the mayors and chairmen of local bodies to the City Council, which; was called a board under the Bill. The objectors did not admit that they had gained very much, so that the city had not lost much. '-Was : the Council, because the suburban bodies had been given representation, prepared to take the responsibility of hanging up the scheme for years? - Mr. Somers: If the Bill is dropped, when can it be brought up again? The Mayor: In . abou* ,10 -.. years. (Voices No!) It will take several years at any rate. .-■.'■■ .•' ■; - " — " - . Mr. Parr: His /Worship. will go on with the Greater Auckland scheme in the meantime, and get it. Mr. Myers: His Worship will go out I of office in a few months, and if you throw the-Bill out now, there will be no Bill lor some years. You can take the responsibility.

MR. : ENTRICAN IN EXPLANATION. . Mr. A. J. Entrican, the other delegate, said :;f.he delegates had absolutely; wowed everything they were sent to Wellington to secure. (Cries of " Oh," and "No," and laughter.) , Mr, Farrell: I can swallow c lot.,- but not thai. ..',v~;- r

Mr. Entrican: I want to tell■■ you.that what we have done absolutely secures the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. : (Laughter.) Mr. Farrell: ■ That's the best I've ever heard...■...' •'.'■ " ■

Mr. Entrican: I will prove to you thatthat little addition is nothing at all. Mr. Parr: Why didn't you say that before you went? You said then you would never agree tc a drainage board. . . Mr. Entrican.:; We thought if wo «at ti<rht we'd get the, Bill, and tko local bodies would accept it. *' ' ' •'•■ > Mr. Fan-ell: But you didn't sit tight. You slid off" the rail. (Laughter.) Mr. Entrican: We thought-it ridiculous to think that Parliament' would-reject the Bill because these two small districts were standing out./ It is necessary sometimes to execute a flanking movement. (Laughter and ironic applause.) Mr. Parr: "it was all flanking. Mr.. Entricaii':- We went to secure absolute contro 1 for the city.'. 'Mr, Knight:'; And lost it.' Mr. ..Entricaii: The basis of assessment is the most important part of all. The drainage board is not a board such as? the one we objected to. Mr. Parr: Oh! Mr. Entrican: Mr. Parr look., quite agoniited, but he knows the board is quite a .different thing from one controlling reticulation as well as the main sowers. We have got all the local bodies firmed up now, but if you drop the Bill you won't get them up to the scratch again for years. M|r. Parr: They will come up to the scratch at once, and flock to get into a Greater Auckland. THE OPPOSITION STANDPOINT. ; Mr. Parr said that he had not. expressed his opinion at Thursday night's meeting: he had only expressed his disappointment. He regretted that the delegates liad gone. tc Wellington and forgotten there was such a body as the Auckland City Council. He was disappointed, grievously disappointed, at ' the result He did not agree that the. Mayor or anyone else hid the right to go to Wellington and do something contrary to the Council's instructions without giving the Council an opportunity to consider the matter. If the difficulties had seemed insurmountable it would have been better to have come back and stated the position to the Council. A drainage board was being set up, and a drainage board in its worst form. It was true the city would have a majority, but that would x:ount for nothing. The City of Melbourne had a majority on its board, and was utterly dissatisfied and disgusted with it. The fact that the city had » majority would not prevent continual litigation and quarrelling and friction. .''." , Mr. Entrican: There is he similar ease. Mr. Parr: You have 11 or 12 gentlemen representing the suburbs. Very well. We know them. Pretty i tenacious and pretty quarrelsome, and they would have authority within your own' boundary. No, you won't be a 'happy family on that drainage board. 1 ; All such boards are ineffective. They will want another engineer, solicitor,

and secretary, and we might have to get others. In three ; years you will have a nice ■expensive little drainage "board, and no on© can raise any objection. ' In giving them this representation you are killing the Greater Auckland v scheme: for the next generation. (Hear, hear.) It will keep parochialism alive. Proceeding,, he said the delegates were asking them to adopt a thing which Was wrong in principle and in practice. 'He thought they should rather allow •it to be postponed for 12 months if thev could do without a drainage board. The Council had been given the rights, the foreshore, and other grants, and not the. local bodies. > Liberality made weakness, and sometimes constituted an' injustice to the people they represented. Instead of keeping up the Greater Auckland question, it had dropped. Just now, with this Drainage Bill in front, six out, of seven of the local bodies would come into the Greater Auckland. Formerly the, Council had expressed an opinion that it would not have outside representation as constituting a drainage board, and now the Mayor asked it to go back on this resolution. He could not do it'.- He would rather go out of the Council than stultify himself in that way "I think, - ' he concluded, "that we ■would have one of the most evil things we could have. There is a much lees expensive way, and it would be to drop" the Will. Mr. Pair then moved "That the Council is unable, on the evidence before it, to agree to the constitution of a. drainage board."

Mr. Court seconded the motion, and said the delegates had given away the only thing the Council considered absolutely requisite, the sole control. He would never agree to outside bodies coming in and controlling the affairs of the city. He regretted that the responsibility of rejecting the Bill had been thrown upon the Council and not on the objectors, Parnell and Remuera.

Mr. Smeeton agreed in,'the main iiith Mr. Parr. A drainage board would be a disaster to the city. If the Council affirmed a drainage board, and gave representation, the other local bodies hid all they required, and the Greater Auckland scheme would be put back very seriously. Sir. Tudehope was disappointed at the action taken, but recognised that the delegates had been obliged to" take up that Cition. His objection was to a drainage rd.composed as this one would be. The Council was told by Mr. Entrican that this was to be a heaven-born board, but they would find it was something else. Mr. Knight said he could not express in too strong terms his surprise and disappointment at the delegates having gone contrary to the vote of the Council. After the Council had come to such calm and deliberate conclusions he was sorry that three strong men had seen fit to turn a J somersault, as they had done. He thought j a fearful sacrifice hud been made. ; Mr. Casey regretted that they were dii vided on this question, and expressed the I opinion that a drainage board would not I be in the best interests of the city. FAVOURABLE VIEWS. Mr. Grey : " Out dignity has been a little bit wounded, and we don't like it. Personally I would have acted as the delegates, had I been similarly placed.';' Mr. Hutchison said he had felt disappointed, but after hearing the discussion, thought the compromise was in the beet interests of the city and suburbs. Mr. R. Farrell objected to the drainage board, but? rather than throw back the scheme for three or four 'years he would agree to the compromise. " . Mr. P. M. Mackay thought the dele-, gates had done the best possible thing in the circumstances. The alarming epidemic of typhoid last year was sufficient argument why the scheme should not be further delayed. . , ■?' Mr. Patterson said the representation was on a fair basis, and he agreed, that the compromise was the only possible solution. . ; Mr. Somers said he did not like the idea of a. drainage board, but he could not take the responsibility of delaying the Bill, and he would endorse the delegates' action. • i The Mayor explained that there had been absolutely no time in which to consult the Council. The matter had to jbe decided on the moment. He disagreed I with anyone who said that 16 members of | the City Council could not do justice to ! Auckland. . As far as setting up new I set of officials was concerned, no one would j dream of that. He was convinced that ! the time had not arrived for" the bringing about of a Greater Auckland. THE MOTION LOST.' Mr. Parr's motion was then put and lost, Messrs. Court, Smeeton, Parr, Knight, Casey, and Tudehope, voting for it, and the Mayor and Messrs. Mackay, Hutchison, Patterson, Farrell, Somers, Grey, Bagnall, and Entrican against. A motion confirming the action of the delegates was moved, but was withdrawn upon it being shown that the voting would have to be the same as on the other motion. ,\.V

. PARNELL'S ATTITUDE. 1- . STILL ON THE ALERT. A special meeting of the Parnell Borough Council was held last tight, for the purpose of receiving the report of Messrs. R. B. Lusk and F. Pitt, who went to Wellington a.s the Council's representatives to object to the Drainage Bill. Those present were: The Mayor (Mr. G. W. Basley), and Messrs. R. B. Lusk, F. Fitt, W. Johns, Thompson, J. R. Lundon, F. G. Fowler, G. Foster, and R. S. Briggs. The report was in the main a recapitulation of the facts already known. Mr. Fitt, in supplementing the report, stated that they found the members of the City Council who went to Wellington amenable to reason, and disposed to do what was right, and he congratulated the Mayor of Auckland on the broad-minded attitude he had assumed. Hid the City Council shown a similar disposition to meet the objecting bodies before, there was no doubt that a great deal of the friction which had arisen would never have taken place!. - On the question of assessment he felt confident in anticipating that the Local Bills Committee would place it on something approaching a fair and equitable basis. "■■■>. Mr. G. Foster considered that all the | other outside bodies had had an axe to ! grind, and had been compensated by the city accordingly, with the result that Parnell was now left to bear the burden. Parnell was properly drained, and it was now being asked to share the cost of draining the other districts, which he considered was monstrous. The Mayoi said that personally he would have been very pleased had the Bills Committee or the Auckland City Council cut them out altogether. The borough was well drained, and to make it more efficient they could gather all their sewers to Point Resolution, and carry it. out 1000 ft into the harbour, where he contended it would be less offensive than to discharge it at Okahu Point. The whole of this could be carried out for an expenditure of about £5000, whereas under the method of assessment as proposed the borough would have to pay something like £20,000 or £30,000. There was some talk that they could be prevented by the Harbour Board, from carrying out a scheme such as/he proposed, but he did not attach any importance to that at all. There was such a thing as an Arbitration Court, from which they could get justice. It was all very well for people to cry out about Parnell," but Parnell had to look out for its own interests, and they', as the i Council, were there to safeguard them. Mr Foster: Can't we be excluded from i the Rill? The Mayor: I think we have gone too i far for that. . Mr. J. R. Lundon then moved. " That 'the sincere thanks of the Council, as representing the rentpayers and ratepayers of Parnell, be accorded to the Council's delegates for their successful efforts to secure from the Parliament of New Zealand a measure of justice denied by the City Council under the Drainage Bill." He considered that Remuera had been nozzled by the granting of two more drains. ■ ■;.' """, The Mayor seconded the motion, which was carried. It was also resolved to keep a vigilant eye on future proceedings, especially with regard to the method of assessment, and to instruct Mr. H. D. Bell, K.C., of Wellington, to act on the Council's behalf. '•?**'■'' ' ".-'"' .; -■■ ' ' '"'■: ■