RIVERS CONTROL BILL

Southland Times, Issue 24544, 19 September 1941, Page 6

RIVERS CONTROL BILL

MEASURE PASSED BY HOUSE CONTENTIOUS CLAUSE RETAINED (Special) WELLINGTON, Sept. 18. After a full day’s discussion in the committee stages, the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Bill was passed tonight 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. Polson (Nat., Stratford) in 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 erosion which took place in the high country. If that problem was to be handled the land would have to be restored to a bush condition. He criticized the proposed council and said it was without representatives of 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 decision of the council and for compensation for land taken or damaged by the council and for the right of appeal on compensation decisions. He advocated elective catchment boards with experts as associate members only. REHABILITATION MEASURE Mr F. L. Frost (Lab., 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 either 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 (Nat., 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 out. The Minister of Public Works (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) said that if the Bill dealt with rivers alone it could not cope with the difficulty, much of which was caused by erosion in the high country. Answering Mr Polson, he said that local residents would have a majority on catchment boards and 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 approved by local bodies. Intimating that he intended to move later wider representation on the council, Mr J. N. Massey (Nat., Franklin) said that the Bill would not be worth much unless the whole-hearted cooperation of local bodies was gained. NOT A “RUSH” BILL The Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Kaipara) said that another rating authority was being 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. The Minister of Railways (the Hon. 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 the brains to know which remedy should be applied. 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, but that could only be decided after the principles had been put into operation. Mr Polson said he believed that all the difficulties would be ironed out if 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. Surely it was worth while making some slight concession so that the Bill, which was undoubtedly good in principle, would go through without too greatly affecting the confidence of the people concerned by it. If the council had only a slight preponderance of representatives of local bodies and farmers on it, that would be thought to be satisfactory to those people. AMENDMENT DEFEATED Mr Massey moved an amendment to the effect that instead of two persons being appointed by the GovernorGeneral on the recommendation of the Minister as representing local authorities, three persons should be appointed on the recommendation of the Counties’ Association. On the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser) raising 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 Semple said that laymen had been tinkering with the erosion problem for years, but a solution was a matter for engineers. The amendment proposed to take away one of the engineers and leave control in the hands of laymen.

The amendment was defeated by 38 votes to 18.

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 adjourned until tomorrow morning.