RELIEF FOR RANGITAIKI.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19125, 17 September 1925, Page 11

RELIEF FOR RANGITAIKI.

REPORT OF COMMISSION. EASING SETTLERS' BURDEN. DOWN THE OUTLAY. FURTHER WORK REQUIRED. ■MAINTENANCE RATE SUBSIDY. [BY TELEURAPH. —SPECIAL REPORTER.] •• WELLINGTON. Y/ednesday. A comprehensive scheme for relieving settlers upon the Rangitaiki Plains from their heavy liability for the drainage of their land is presented by the latelyappoinicd Royal Commission, the report of which was laid before Parliament to- , day. Briefly, the commission proposes that the present net liability of £481,202 bo reduced to £369,200 on>, account of credits for railway construction savings and other items, that £40,000 be spent on further drainage works, and that, of the balance of £409,200, the Government wipe off half by way of subsidy, leaving the eettlers £204,600 to find. Further, they recommend a scale of Government subsidies on rates levied for maintenance purposes and that all drainAge rates for the years 1924-25 and 192526 be remitted, rating after March 31, "292 C to be on the basis of £204,600. The report also proposes certain additional drainage works. The commissioners are Messrs. Ashley Hunter, of Auckland, chairman, W. D, J Hunt, of Wellington, and H. B. Williams, of Gisborne. Cost o! Additional Works. On March 31, 1925, the commissioners state, the net capital liability involved in the drainage operations was £481,202. • This is apart from the sum of £58,633 for rates that have been remitted and which the State has paid to the Rangitaiki land drainage -account out of the consolidated revenue. This is a subsidy ishich. the State has granted to the venture and is, as far as we can see, the only ttubsidy that it has given. In addition to i this capital sum. of £481,202 there is a further capital expenditure that we have indicated as being, in our opinion., necessary to render the present drainage system j more effective. We have not attempted to make any detailed estimate of the cost of these additional works, but we are of opinion that the work ought to bo done ior a sum not exceeding £40,000. ' Net Liability o! Settlers. As a set off against this present net liability the State owns plant and me,chin-' ery the residual value of which is cow, ing. that these drainage work:) have been the means of effecting a great saving in ihe oost of railway construction over a length of at least 10 miles, thai, a .sub- ' st'antial charge should be made against the' Public Works Department on that account. Wo recommend that- the sum of £35,000 is not an excessive charge to ririake on this account. We are further of the' opinion that the cost of making all th 6 main and access roads across this swamp, estimated at £50,000, should be charged against the State. Deducting these amounts of £27,000, £35.000 and fiom the present net liability of £481,202 leaves a sum of £369,200, to Which has to be added £40,0p0, the estimate of proposed additional works, bringing the proposed total liability up • tp'£409,200. Of this amount we • recoup mend that the Government should contribute, by way of £1 for £1 subsidy, the stiih of £204,6C0, leaving an amount of £204,600 as representing the net liability oOettlera. , The Maintenance Kate, • 'The drainage area is liable for a rate to cover interest on this sum and also for ; a sinking fund to ultimately repay it. This rate we recommend should be fixed at, s.per cent." or 4A per cent, for interest pWs £'per cent, for sinking fund. In addition the cost of annual maintenance hu.; to be provided ' for. This is estimated by the drainage department's engineer as probably amounting to £7OOO * pfclr annum. We recommend that of this or . any other annual amount chargeable >, for ordinary' maintenance the Government should contribute by way of subsidy £1 for £1 for the first year, 18s for the second year, 16s for the third year, and bo on until the subsidy is reduced to 10s for £1 and that thereafter the amount of Government subsidy toward annual maintenance charges should remain at 10s for £l. The settlers' share of the maintenance charge is to be met by an additional rate. 4 Factors in Decision. The Commissioners have taken into account the following factors(a) The extremely disappointing character of the swamp lands after they hive been drained; (b) the disparity between the original estimates and the final cost of drainage operations, coupled with the fact that under the Rangitaiki Drainage Acts of , 1910 and 1913 Owners and settlers were in no way given an opportunity cither to agree to or protest against being saddled with a large.financial liability; (c) as a result of the war and its aftermath the more or less unavoidable time taken to complete the works with consequent loss to the settlers and (d) the fact that in undertakings of a similar character it has, been the frequent practice of the Government to subsidise, such works to a greater or less extent. If the swamp lands had been of better quality and the drainage operations had resulted in rendering the whole area productive to a degree sufficient to enable an,immediate profit to be made out of it tlwn our recommendations would have been different as there i? no doubt that under these circumstances a rate for capital cost and maintenance could have been collected because if the people now occupying the land did not pay it somebody else would come in and do so. "\ Ultimate Return to State. The only people likely to develop this country are those who are now occupying it, with the assistance of tbos« who are helping them financially, and these —both occupiers and their backers —for the most part, will only continue to do so in tho nope of saving something of what they hate already put in and not in tho expectation of ever getting back the whole of the money already invested. In any case, huge suras have been, and must bo lost, both by. settlers and by those who have supported, them financially. If the full interest and maintenance charges were to be insisted upon it seems to us almost certain that large areas would be abandoned, and only the richest ' spots, and those most easy to work, wo 'Jd remain occupied. Such a reduced ma would find it difficult to carry even the maintenance rate, -quite apart from any rate to cover interest and sinking fund on capital expenditure. It I " as t be borne in mind, however, that if these nieas are ultimately made productive then the State will get a return from it in many other ways. The commissioners say that only 118 replies were received to 500 circulars asking for part iculars of mortgages. On these incomplete returns they estimate that the total amount on mortgage over the whole . district is about £1,000,000. # /on, this question they remark the fact that the land is settled by a ficstclass. body of settlers who have valuable experience, mostly dearly paid for; wis consider tho mortgagees will be ill-advised not to msJte terms with those in occupation, either by substantially writ ing down existing mortgages or where possible finding capital for further development. A great many mortgages have already, been substantially written down, but much ox

the land is still mortgaged for a great deal more than it is worth. Mortgagees who know their business will face the position promptly and make adjustments on the basis of true values. Those who do not do this will in the end lose far more than they will do if they face the position now. Ihe commissioners set out their recommendations in detail under the 11 headings in the order of reference. Regarding mortgages they say in part, "We cannot recommend any legislation that would interfere between the settlers and their mortgages. We think that these should be loft to work out their own arrangements among themselves. Any interference on the part of the State with the rights of mortgagees would have far-reach-ing and injurious effects. It would create a want of confidence on the part of investors in farm securities that might bring financial trouble to thoroughly sound settlers in all parts of the Dominion." Dealing with the engineering questions referred to them the commissioners consider that the great bulk of the work has been finished. There is, however, further work involving a capital expenditure that still requires to be done. They make the following recommendations: — (A) That flood gates be placed at the outfall o£ the Kopeopeo .drain into the Rangiiaiki River to prevent tidal water from backing it up on flood tide and passing through it into the Whakatane River on the ebb. These gates should be at Lsast three-fourths as wide as the outlet itself. (B) That a new outlet for this drain into the Whakatane River be made nearer the sea, and provided .with ample flood gates. This, they think, would avoid trouble from floods, the new outlet being always at sea level. (C) That the Awaiti drain be widened for four and 'ahalf miles from its outlet, and that the erection of flood gates at the latter be considered. The commissioners have favourably considered a scheme put forward by settlers for diverting the Tarawcra River (the principal cause of floods) into the head of the Tumar&u drain. It is argued by the settlers that this would put the river behind a low range of hills that would effectually protect the plain, and that it would not be necessary to stopbank the new cut, as if it flooded before it reached the protection of the low hills mentioned it would only overflow on to an area of at present worthless country, and woidd be prevented from reaching the main plain largely by its own existing high banks. The report rocommends that the scheme fee investigated by an independent engineer. The commissioners do not favour the formation of a drainage board or boards by the settlers at present, but recommend that consideration of the proposal be deferred for another five years. DISCUSSION IN HOUSE. TRIBUTE TO MINISTER. INTEREST IN THE SETTLERS. TROUBLE DUE TO SUBSIDENCE. [BY TELEGRAPH. —SPECIAL EXPORTER.] "WELLINGTON. Wednesday. The presentation of the Rangitaiki Land Drainage Commission's report to the House of Representatives to-day led to a short discussion in which the Minister for Lands, Hon. A. D. McLeod, briefly reviewed the position. Mr. F. F. Hockly (Rotorna), spoke warmly in praise of the interest that Mr. McLeod had shown in the settlers and their problems and •• of the thorough personal investigation he had made on the spot as soon as possible after his appointment to Cabinet ran}c. By meeting the settlers, he said, the Minister had gained their confidence, and they had every hope that the commission's recommendations would be satisfactory and that the Government would do its utmost to help them' in their difficulties. The development of the 80,000 acres contained in thp Rangitaiki Swamp area, said Mr. Hockly, was a matter of importance to the whole Dominion. Whan the work was complete the land, which had almost no value in its virgin state, would be among the most productive in the country. The settlers had undertaken- drainage works in the first place, but the task was obviously beyond them, and it was soon .seen to be a Government matter. ' At present the settlers were suffering under very heavy rates and charges equivalent to these on a mortgage of £36 pes' acre. Many of them had left ' their holdings and the rest would have to leave en bloc if they were' not given assistance. If they did the land would revert to its natural state and half a million would be lost. He was convinced that if the present settlers, who were of a splendid type, went away no others could be found to do their work equally well. i A Brash With Labour.

Mr. Hockly had spoken of the recent sever© floods when ' a voice, from the Labour benches asked: "How many votes are iiri that?" Mr. Hockly remarked that ho could not hear the interjection. Mr. F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn): How many votes do yoa expect to get by that speech ? Mr. Hocklyt There are some hon. gentlemen in this House who have no regard for anything except from the point of view "of votes. JSe protested that a member had every right to speak on behalf of his constituents from a sense of public duty without being accused of vote-hunting. Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central): The personification of political purity. Mr. Hockly : That 'is the last thing I could say of the hon. member. He is the personification of something else. The Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. H. S. Holland., drew a remark from the Minister that legislation would be brought down later and that the House would then bave-an opportunity to discuss the contents of the report,. which would be circulated. Mr. < Holland remarked that he was well acquainted with the needs of the settlers. He and his party were prepared to support them in their applications to the Government, for redress. In view of what the Minister had said he would defer comment until legislation appeared. Statement by Minister. The Minister for Lands replying said he had personally met about threefourths of the settlers and had seen their farms. He had quickly realised their difficulties,, especially the heavy burden of charges which the land was called upon to bear. If the scheme had turned out as expected and it had been possible to keep the land permanently above sea level it would have carried all the charges without trouble. However, owing to subsidence there was less than a foot to spare, in some parts only a few inches, above high tide mark. If the land could be cleared of water by pumping, which was the only method, it would subside further. ..Some of it was very good land, but he had held, and the commission bore out his view, that it could not- carry the .present burden of debt. The Government he kilew was certain to be criticised about the matter and it (must accept criticism, "but the present Government was not entirely responsible seeing that the scheme had been initiated as far back as 1910. The motion to print the report was carried. ,