AUCKLAND'S RAILWAYS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15716, 17 September 1914, Page 9

AUCKLAND'S RAILWAYS.

TWO PETITIONS TO HOUSE.

PAEROA- POKENO BRANCH

WAITEMATA ROUTE SURVEY

[BY TELEGRAPH.— SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT}

Wellington, Wednesday. Some time was spent by the House this evening in discussing two reports by the M to Z Petitions Committee on petitions from the Auckland district in regard to proposed new railways. One was a petition asking for the construction of a line already surveyed from Paerea to Pokeno, and the other asked that a trial survey be made of the route of a railway from the north shore of the Waiternata Harbour to a suitable junction with the North Auik land Main Trunk line.

In regard to the first petition, the committee reported that as the matter was one of policy it had no recommendation to make.

Mr. Glover (Auckland Central), in the absence through illness of Mr. Poland (Ohinemuri), made some remarks on behalf of the petitioners in the PaeroaPokeno case, and moved that the petition be referred back to the committee for reconsideration. On the advice of Mr. T. W. Rhodes (Thames), the motion was withdrawn, and the report was ordered to be laid on the table.

The recommendation of the committee :n regard to the petition for a trial survey of the Waiternata line was that as the matter was one of policy it should be referred to the Government.

Mr. Harris (Waitemata) pointed out that the petitioners were not asking for any money, but only for a trial survev of a line which would'soon become an absolute necessity. The line in question would be m the interests of the whole of the North Auckland peninsula. It would greatly reduce the distance between Auckland and the point of junction with the mam line. The suggested bridge across the Waitemata Harbour, which might carry the railway, was a further argument in favour of the prayer of the petitioners. . -Mr. Witty (Riccarton) asked why a dif. fercntation had been made bv the committee in reporting on the petitions. Whv should one be referred to the Government and the other merely ordered to lie on the table?

Hie Minister for Public Works (Hon. \V. 1-ra.ser): One petition asked for a railway to be made, and the other only asked lor trial survey. In one caw a vote was required, and in the other no vote was asked for. A large number of flying surveys of proposed lines were now being made in both Islands. These survevs did not cost much, but when they were" made they were usually followed by an application for a vote. In some of the cases when the surveys were made, he had told the people that there was no hope of getting a railway. In some instances a railway would cost £25,000 to construct, and the Government could not afford that at present. He had no engineers available to make more flying surveys than those now in progress, but as soon as he had an engineer available he would be quite willing to make a flying survey of the line in question or any other proposed line. ■Mr. A. M. Myers (Auckland East) said that if the Minister granted a flying survey of the proposed line he might be assured that the people interested would follow it up by asking for a vote. (Laughter). Mr. Fraser : I have no doubt about it. (Laughter). Mr. Bradney (Auckland West) said that the railway asked for in the North of Auckland would open up a great deal of good country, including fruit-growing areas.

Mr. Russell (Avon) twitted the Minister for Public Works with inconsistency in having numerous flying surveys made when he knew that he had no money for the construction of the lines. The large number of requests for these surveys was probably due to the Prime Minister's statement that the policy of th* Government was to make railways even where they were not expected.

Mr. Massey : Where did I say that?

Mr. Russell : At the Thames. It was reported in the New Zealand Herald.

After further remarks, Mr. Okey (Taranaki). chairman of the committee, stated that it was most unfair to suggest that there had been any invidious differentiation in the treatment of the two petitions.

The report in thi. case of the second petition was adopted, and it was ordered that the petition be referred to the Government.