ROTORUA A BOROUGH.

Waipa Post, Volume XXI, Issue 1279, 10 August 1922, Page 4

ROTORUA A BOROUGH.

SECOND READING <)F THE BILL.

“ G.U.G.” and “ M.U.G.”

The second reading of the Bill which constitutes a borough of Rotorua was moved in the House of Representatives by * the Minister in charge of Tourist Resorts (the Hon. W. Noslworthy.) Sir- John Luke (Wellington North) was of opinion that the borough of Rotorua should be given all the rights enjoyed by other boroughs. He did not think the Bill conferred these rights. It was not very liberal. The Mayor and four councillors were to be elected by the' people ; the Government was to have the right to appoint , two membersl The drainage, water, and lighting power works were not to vest in the municipality, but in the Tourist Department. The powers conferred by the Bill were insufficient for the building up of a sotlnd municipality. The Hon. A. T. Ngata (Eastern Maori) thought that probably the people of Rotorua would prefer not to have the responsibility of drainage and other works thrown upon them at once. The Natives interested were not opposed to the Bill, though they had certain points to bring before the Native Affairsi Committee. The Minister of Education (the Hon. C. J. Parr) said that the large State interests within the borough, boundaries justified the Government in its claim for representation on the council. In withholding the control of certain works -> from the borough council, the Government was simply sparing the Rotorua people a gift of heavy liabilities.

Mr L. M.- Isitt (Christchurch North) could not see why the people of Rotorua should be “spoon-fed” He found it impossible to divine why Rotorua, with all | the special advantages and attractions k possessed, •should be loaded with privileges and protected from liabilities. If the Bill went through, Rotorua ought to erect a statue to its/ representative and confer upon him the title G.U.G. (“Great Universal Getter”). Mr F. F. Hockly (Rotorua) saw the matter in quite a different light. He was pleased with the Bill. He saw Rotorua cOming to the rescue of the Government and 'assuming burdens that the Government was' at present bearing. He said, good humouredly, that the decoration he would suggest for Mr Isitt, in view of that member’s ignorance of the case, was that Of M.U.G.

Mr !J. Horn (WakatipuK. wished to tell tiie House how sadly the resorts in which he was interested were ne glected ; but he did not get very far on this line, as the Speaker expressed a preference for statements more directly related to the siubject matter of. the Bill. Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) said that from a perusal of thes Bill he had concluded : “ Happy are the people of Rotorua, for they (are, ;the white-headed people of the Dominion !” He found the Bill and the explanations of it unsatisfactory. The inhabitants of Rotorua were to receive' such treatment as the people of other towns never received. “ Fortunate, blessed, happy borough ! ” said Mr Wright, as he enumerated the concessions to be made\to the new municipality. “ What’s wrong with Rotorua is that the people there charge too much,” he added. “There’s a cry of backsheesh on all sides . . . The property of the people of New Zealand is here being given away in the most unfair terms. I venture 'to say that next session there will be a Bill to let them take everything—baths, sanatorium, and all—these favoured people of Rotorua.” Mr Hockly : Absolute nonsense.

Mr G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) said that the Bill marked a step forward. He wished to know, however, how much was involved in the gift to the borough of the rents of Crown lands within the borough. He considered that more information should be given the House about the financial aspect of the present transaction. “ The best thing the Government can do is to unload Rotorua on to the ■people (of that place as saloon as possible,” said Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne), who approved the Bill. Mr No swarthy, replying, said that the rents referred to by Mr Forbes amounted to £2156, and were a diminishing quantity. The average annual amount of the- bath fees which it wag proposed to allocate (with a £I3OO limit) to the borough was about £I3OO. If members desired more information about particular clauses, he would give it at the committee stage.

The Bill was read a second time, and referred to the Native Affairs Committee.