CITY DRAINAGE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23029, 5 May 1938, Page 18

CITY DRAINAGE

SCHE3IE FOR AUCKLAND CLAIM BY LABOUR RESENTMENT BY MEMBER ORIGIN OF THE PROPOSALS A claim made by" Labour members of tho Auckland and Suburban Drainage Board at recent: political meetings that they had been responsible for the decision to proceed with the major scheme of drainage for Auckland was challenged at a meeting of tho board yesterday by Mr. 1. J. Goldstine. This led to some warm exchanges between Labour members and others. deferring to tho Labour members' claim, Mr. Goldstine said it was a matter that affected all other members of tho board, and it was only fair to tho public that they should know tho facts. Ho thought the claim was tho most colossal piece of impertinence and audacity of which ho had ever hoard. Ho said the Labour majority had claimed credit for tho appointment of tho two experts who had reported finally on the drainage proposals, and for initiating the drainage scheme. Not only was that statement untrue, -but it was definitely misleading to the public of Auckland. Tho scheme was initiated long before there was a Labour majority on the City Council or on the Drainage Board, and it was proceeded with on the initiative of one man, the chairman of tho board. Work of Chairman Tho chairman, Sir Ernest Davis, expressed regret that ho had been brought into the discussion, and asked that nothing further be said about the matter. The members of tho board had worked in amity throughout, and it did not matter who got the credit. Mr. Goldstine later stated that tho position reached to-day with the schema was due to the chairman. Immediately the new board was appointed three years ago, Sir Ernest had asked tho suburban members to meet him, and tho first matter he brought before them was the drainage scheme. Again asking that the matter be dropped. Sir Ernest said that on several occasions he convened meetings of tho suburban Mayors and chairmen to discuss the issues involved, to get their co-operation and obtain their viewpoints so that thev could get on with the job. Ho asked Mr. Goldstine and Mr. J. S. Stewart, who had said lie wished to reply to Mr. Goldstine, to allow tho matter to drop. Credit to All Mr. Goldstine said a reflection had been cast upon every member of the s board who did not happen to be in the Labour majority. Yet these members had done as much, if not more, to bring tho scheme to a successful issue. The Labour majority Was claiming credit for which it was not entitled. Besides tho chairman, every member of the board must be given credit. Tho claim made was either a pioco of humour or it was cribbing. The public of Auckland were tho masters, and no doubt would mete out punishment in duo course.

After the Hon. B. Martin, M.L.C., had spoken, declaring that an attempt H'as being made to use the meeting for electioneering purposes, Mr. Stewart moved that the board express its regret at the attitude taken up by Mr. Goldstine.

Mr. Stewart said it had not been claimed that the Labour majority had conceived the drainage scheme, but the Labour members formed a majority on tho board, and .nothing could be done on the board without their consent. Ho said the Labour l majority's decisions were always carried out by the board, and the Labour members knew what they were going to do before they came to the board's meetings. Tho suburban Mayors had taken no action before the Labour majority came on the board. A reference by Mr. Stewart to caucus gatherings of suburban Mayors with the Mayor of the city caused several members to protest. "Extravagant Statements"

Hie chairman said tho board had taken the view all along that he had done the right thing in consulting the suburban Mayors to have the difficulties resolved. Mr. Stewart: We have claimed to have done a certain thing regarding drainage, and that claim will stand. Mr. Goldstine is only a voice in the wilderness. Mr. Stewart added that the Labour majority, in co-operation with the Mayor, decided what should be done. "Extravagant statements have been made on both sides, and the trouble has arisen because of what has been said from a public platform," said the Hon. T. Bloodworth, M.L.C. "1 must agree with Mr: Goldstine that the reported statement was a reflection on those members of the board who were not in the Labour majority. All tho board had a part in the decision made, and at every stage the decisions were unanimous. Move Made in 1928 "Mr. Stewart claims that the Labour majority initiated the Brown's Island scheme, but the board's engineer, Mr. H H. Watkins, initiated it ; 1 have had a continuous association with this business from the day the Auckland Harbour Board asked the Drainage Board to move the outlet from Orakei. But for tho three or four years of the depression, this scheme would have been initiated long ago." The Chairman: 1 entirclv agree with that

; Mr. Bloodworth: The credit must bo given all round. The action taken by the Drainage Board in this matter has been taken by the board, as a whole, right from 1928, when it was decided to send Mr. Watkins round the world on a tour of ins|>eotion. The discussion was then dropped.