COUNTY AMALGAMATION

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXXI, Issue 47, 26 February 1936, Page 2

COUNTY AMALGAMATION

MR. CHRISTIE’S PLAN FOR CENTRAL HAWKE’S BAY VOLUNTARY SCHEME SUGGESTED YESTERDAY CONFERENCE DISCUSSES RIVER CONTROL Representatives of Central Hawke’s Bay local bodies received a surprise yesterday afternoon when, at " ence convened to discuss the problem of river cont , • II M Christie, M.P., 'put forward a proposal for the voluntary amalgamation of the Waipawa, Patangata, and Waipukurau counties. Mr. Christie stated that while the Government was prepared to render assistance in the work of river control in Central Hawke’s Bay it would prefer that this voic. should be under the jurisdiction of one controlling, body rather than several. Mr. Christie asked for a unity of interest, stating that this would afford real co-operation. The only alternative was the setting up of a Rivers’ Board and this would entail the Government appointing a Commission to define the area to be controlled by such a board, the holding of a poll and the appointing of a board. This the Government did not wish to do, but would prefer that an amalgamation be affected and authority could then be given to this body to carry out river works, in addition to controlling county affairs. PROPOSAL NOT FAVOURED. The suggested plan of amalgamation, however, was not accorded a favourable reception, representatives ex- ' pressing the opinion that they preferred to carry on under the existing system. All agreed that the only way in which such amalgamation could be brought about was by compulsory measures enacted by the Government. While the conference agreed that the control of the Waipawa and Tuki Tuki rivers was necessary no definite plan of action was arrived at and members decided to discuss the matter with their respective councils and then if necessary make representations to the Government for the preparation of a report on the rivers.

Those represented at the meeting were as follow: —Messrs C. Pattison (Patangata County); A. C. Russell and L. M. Monckton (Waipukurau County); I. W. N. Mackie (Waipukurau Borough); C. G. Harker (Waipawa Borough); W. F. Spargo (Waipawa Rivers Board); and the following engineers: Messrs. J. C. McLauchlan (Patangata County), V. E. Douglas (Waipawa County), R. B. Price (Waipukurau County), H. B. Smart (Waipukurau Borough), and the Waipawa Borough Overseer, Mr. R. Petherick. Mr. C. Pattison was in the chair. “The Tuki Tuki and Waipawa river problem is becoming greater. The state of the beds is gradually becoming worse, and the damage is getting greater,” said Mr. Christie, at the opening of the conference. He urged the need for some system of control. “If you appoint a Rivers Board to control the rivers are area to be controlled will have to be defined by a commission. Then there will have to be a poll by the people affected and then a board will have to be appointed,” said Mr. Christie. Too Many Boards To-day. “There are too many boards today. It is the intention of the Government to reduce the number of boards which are making the work of the Government increasingly difficult. We have no wish to force people to do things they don’t want to do, but we want things looked at from a more national viewpoint. “I took the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Minister of Internal Affairs who has been working on a plan of co-ordination of boards, to give a widening interest. This would enable the Government to give a greater measure of assistance. The Minister expressed the hope to me that there would be ‘ able to be started a voluntary movement of amalgamation in this locality, as the Government did not wish to exert pressure. It is the intention of the Government to release for reading purposes only all reading taxation. This would assist the : counties generally and we hope they I will co-operate with us in making ' the task of the Government easier by amalgamation.” The position was not satisfactory and he considered that amalgamation of the Waipukurau, Waipawa and Patangata County Councils would give real co-operation and provide an area of similar rating size and area as the Hawke’s Bay County.

“We don’t want to build a body to an unreasonable point, but we would have a controlling body in this area without local bodies in opposition to one another. The Minister of Internal Affairs will render every possible assistance for amalgamation. The Government wants to bring about this amalgamation, as in this instance it would provide a controlling authority to undertake the task of river control. This would put the Government in a better position to assist in this work and I know that

they will definitely give greater assistance under such circumstances.” Mr. Christie explained that the Waipukurau and Waipawa Boroughs would not be concerned in the amalgamation. Waipukurau County’s View. “I know that the Waipukurau County is booked for extinction,” said the chairman of that body, Mr. A. C. Russell. “I know that Patangata and Waipawa would not amalgamate voluntarily, and I know that they would not welcome us with open arms. A referendum would be necessary. I am a great believer in ‘Home Rule.’ You won’t reduce the cost of running the counties. This amalgamation is only a political catch-cry. They have suggested the same with the power boards. I don’t think you’ve got a hope of amalgamation except compulsory—and I don’t think the Government would do that against the wishes of the ratepayers. The Waipukurau County wants to retain its own economy and its rights. The local body system is all right—leave it alone.”

“It is all right—sometimes,” replied Mr. Christie. “We must move with the times. With the multiplicity of local bodies, the task of giving governmental assistance is made increasingly difficult. Unless we consolidate, there can be no prospect of improvement.” Mr. N. M. Paulsen, chairman of the Waipawa County, said that his county was of the opinion . that amalgamation would never come about by voluntary arrangement. “We are quite satisfied to go on as we are. The ratepayers have the chance of a better hearing than they would have under an amalgamated body.” “There is no possibility of a voluntary amalgamation,” said Mr. C. Pattison .chairman of the Patangata County Council. “Personally, if a better scheme was proposed 1 would not stand in its way.” “I admit that no individual likes interference with his rights,” replied Mr. Christie, “but we have to interfere with the individual, as you know. A local body comprises the grouping of the rights of several individuals.” Opinions Differ. “Don’t you think that the Hawke’s Bay County Council is too big,” asked Mr. Russell. “Don’t you think that the Patangata and Waipawa counties are big enough already?” Mr. Christie: “No, I don’t think so.” “We want community of interest,” he continued. “If you are going to bring in community of interest and get one man to help his neighbour, you'll have to hold a club over him,” said Mr. Russell. Mr. N. M. Paulsen (Waipawa County) regretted that prior to the meeting the various local bodies had had no idea of what the meeting would be going to discuss, and stated that consequently the various

delegates could not speak for their councils. Mr. L. M. Monckton (Waipukurau County) said that the whole trouble in the recent flood had been caused by cloud-bursts. All the river boards and stop-banks in the world couid not have stopped the flood. Mr. A. C. Russell said that the difficulty was caused by the willows in the river. He suggested that the Public Works Department and the Unemployment Board could possibly do the work. Renlying to Mr. Russell, Mr Christie said that even if the river was cleared, it would not be fair to expect the Public Works Department to do the work all the time. Whose Responsibility? “The rivers are a big problem, but we feel that if anything is to be done it must be on a definite plan scheme taking the rivers from source to mouth,” said Mr. Paulsen. Speaking for the Waipukurau Borough, the Mayor, Mr. I. W. N. Mackie, said that the first thing was to find out what was required. Mr. L. Glenny (Waipawa County) pointed out that in the recent flood the Waipawa river had flowed across the Ruataniwha Plains at a point some three to four miles north of Waipawa to join the Tuki Tuki River. This was dangerous. Mr. W. Spargo (Waipawa Rivers Board) said that if the river was taken in one comprehensive scheme a definite improvement could be obtain ea. Mr. Paulsen expressed the fear that the scheme of river control would leave the Waipawa County “holding the baby,” as its ratepayers would be principally affected. People disliked paying rates when the property-owners on the river got the benefit through accretion of land.

“You. can’t expect the man on hill country to pay for somebody else’s benefit,’ ’said Mr. C. Pattison (Patangata County). Mr. Christie pointed out that’ the hill country man had provided the problem of the farmer on the river banks through denudation of hill I country. “We must remember that this river country is a national asset which must be protected,” replied Mr. Christie. “We must distribute the load. I doubt whether the area to be protected would be in a position to pay for the work otherwise.” He intended to have steps taken to discontinue the free accretion of land. After further discussion Mr. Christie suggested that the representatives report back to their councils and get' each council to discuss the problem. They could then ask the Government to appoint a Commission to report into it. “I am loth to do this, but with these local viewpoints cropping up that appears to be the best method to adopt.” “We must ask for a report of probable costs, before councils can discuss the matter,” said Mr. Paulsen.

“Why bring down an estimate of costs unless something is to be done? If nothing is done, the time will come when I will have to ask that something be done, for the protection of life. It is a matter for you to decide whether this work be carried on,” said Mr. Christie. Mr. Christie’s suggestion was adopted and the meeting then terminated.