EROSION PROBLEM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24716, 19 September 1941, Page 4

EROSION PROBLEM

REMEDIAL MEASURES BILL PASSED BY HOUSE CONTROL SYSTEM OPPOSED (0.C.) WELLINGTON. Sept. 18. After a full day’s discussion in the committee stages the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Bill was passed to-night by the House of Representatives. The major discussion was on clause 3. which sets out the constitution and personnel of the Control Council, and an Opposition amendment aimed at giving a preponderance of local body representation was defeated. Various clauses dealing with rating were also discussed at length by the Opposition. No alterations to the Bill were made in committee.

"This is a very ambitious measure which cannot be put into operation without inflicting hardship on certain sections and individuals of the community.” said Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition, Stratford), opening the debate on the short title. There were grave objections to some of the proposals. The Opposition said it was going to be an impossible task in a country with the geological formation of New Zealand" to handle effectively the sheet erosion which took place in high country. If that problem was to be handled, the land would have to be restored to bush condition. 0 Power for Minister

Mr Poison criticised the proposed council and said it was without representatives of the local bodies and primary producers, and the Minister was entitled to make any appointment he liked. He also asked that provision should be made for appeals against the decisions of the council for compensation for land taken or damaged by the council and tor the right of appeal on compensation decisions. He advocated elective catchment boards with experts as associate members only. . ™ Mr F L. Frost (Govt., New Plymouth) predicted that the time would come when the Bill would have to be amended to deal also with sea erosion. “Although the point has not been stressed cither in this House or outside, this Bill is a rehabilitation measure,” he said. “It opens up opportunities for returning men to do serviceable work of inestimable value.” _ ... Mr W J. Broadfoot (Opposition. Waitomo): How is it going to be done) Mr Frost replied that funds would be provided, and the Government would see that the work was carried ° U The Minister of Public Works. Mr H T Armstrong, said that, if the Bill dealt with rivers alone, it could not cope with the difficulties, many of which were caused by erosion in high country. Answering Mr Poison, he said that local residents would have a majority on the catchment boards, and the local bodies would have the right to nominate those they wanted on the control council, which was to be appointed in exactly the same way as councils had been appointed by every past Government. He would not appoint any local body representatives unless they were approver, by the local bodies. , , , Intimating that he intended to move later for wider repi'esentation on the council. Mr J. N. Massey (Opposition, Franklin) said the Bill would not be worth much unless the wholehearted co-operation of the local bodies was gamed. Men experienced in the problems should be on the council, and he suggested that representatives of the Counties’ Association, drainage and river boards and farmers’ interests should be appointed. • Mr J. G. Coates (Opposition. Kaipara) said there was a principle in the Bill that was wrong, and that was that another rating authority was being created. Where a rating authority was created when one was already in existence, one of them should be eliminated. Mr Armstrong: It is not another rating authority. It is one to take the place of a multiplicity of authorities. Not a “ Rush ” Measure

The Minister of Railways, Mr R. Semple, said the Bill was not a “ rush ” Bill. The principles of it had been under consideration by Public Works engineers for many years. The problem was not the same in both islands of the Dominion, and they must have brains to know which remedy should be applied in the South Island and which should be used in the North Island. They were tackling a job they had never tackled before, and it was natural that some of the clauses of the Bill would call for amendment later on, but that could only be decided after the principles had been put into operation. He did not have to ask the Minister of Public Works to “ stick his toes in ” and see that the Bill was put on the Statute Book. Mr D, C. Kidd (Opposition, Waitaki) said he considered that the local bodies should be given more representation on the council, and that in particular the back-country farmers should be represented. He emphasised that the task under the Bill was a national one, and instead of another rating authority being set up, the Government should make the job a national one, paid for by Government money out of taxation.

Mr J. O’Brien (Govt., Westland) said a council of six was considered by the Select Committee to be the most workable proposal it could devise. The only way to get the work done was to have a small body of' carefully selected men administering the proposals. There had been no great objection to the Bill as a whole. The committee had gone through every clause with a fine-tooth comb and felt that the Bill could not be further improved. Wider Representation Urged

Mr Poison said ho believed that all the difficulties would be ironed out if the local bodies and farmers were satisfied that the council that would administer the proposals in the Bill was a council in which they could repose complete confidence. If the Government made a concession to satisfy them, in this respect the objections l<> the clauses which at present aroused apprehension and distrust would, he believed. go by the board. If the council had only a slight preponderance of representatives of the local bodies and farmers on it that would, he thought, be satisfactory to those people. Mr Massey said the Bill provided for a council of six members, three nominated by the Government and three by the local authorities, and gave (he council power to impose an additional rating burden on the local bodies and the farming community. Large areas of land were already going out of occupation because the tenants were over-taxed and could not meet the charges loaded against them. If the farming community were given more representation on the council, the Opposition would be pleased to assist in putting the Bill into operation. Amendment Ruled Out Mr Massey moved an amendment to the effect that, instead of two persons being appointed by the GovernorGeneral on the recommendation of the Minister to represent the local authorities, three persons should be appointed on the recommendation of tlie Counties’ Association, The Prime Minister. Mr P. Fraser, having raised a point of order, the Chairman of Committees, Mr R. McKeen. ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it would increase the expenditure of the Crown. Later, Mr Massey moved a further amendment that the Public Works Department representation should be reduced from two to one, making the council membership five instead of six. Mr Armstrong said that the local bodies had stressed the need for experienced men on the council, yet the member for Franklin proposed that an engineer, who would probably be one of the most experienced men, should be struck off. Mr Semple said that laymen had ! been tinkering with the erosion problem for years, but the solution was a matter for engineers. The amendment proposed to take away one of

the engineers and leave the control in the hands of laymen. The amendment was defeated by 38 votes to 38. Rating Authorised

The clauses were passed rapidly through the committee stages until clause 84, which authorises administrative rates to be levied on all rateable property within the meaning of the. Hating Act, was reached. Mr Poison asked why the unfortunate landowner should have to pay the whole of the charges for a work of general benefit. Mr O’Brien said that Mr Poison was asking the State to pay the rates and then find nearly all the money for the works to be carried out. In some cases the State would have to find up to 80 per cent, of the cost. The remaining clauses were put through without delay, and the Bill was read a third time and passed by 10 o’clock, when the House rose till to-morrow morning.