I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Since the circulation of the proposals for legislation dealing with arterial drainage, Deputies in this House who have been presenting Parliamentary Questions to the Minister for Finance since the publication of the Report of the Drainage Commission in 1941 will, I hope, have realised that the delay in bringing forward this legislation, giving effect to the Government's decision to implement that report, was occasioned by the fact that this problem of arterial drainage is a highly complicated one indeed.
I think that will be admitted by any Deputy in this House or any individual outside the House who takes up the Bill, which is made up of 57 sections, and sees for himself all the interests that are affected—the Electricity Supply Board, fisheries, navigation, mill rights, and a number of other rights. I think it will also be admitted that it was necessary for those responsible for the formation of those proposals to devote an enormous amount of time and an enormous amount of discussion as between all the different interests concerned before reaching the stage where those proposals could be circulated. I make those remarks by way of defence, or by way of meeting any charge which may have been lurking at the back of any person's mind that there was undue delay on the part of those who were charged with that responsibility.
Those members of the House who have read and studied the report of the Drainage Commission, published in 1941, will be able to bring to their minds the proposals or the methods suggested in that report by which this problem of arterial drainage should be tackled. The Government has accepted that report almost in detail. The commission suggested a central drainage authority which would be responsible for the initiation of all future drainage schemes. The commission suggested also that that central authority should set up a maintenance organisation. The proposals here follow closely along those lines. The commission suggested, too, the method by which maintenance work in future was to be financed. In fact, it is only in that important respect that the proposals here depart from the main features of the recommendations. Deputies will recall that that commission felt that those whose lands were benefited as a result of the carrying out of arterial drainage should be called upon to make some contribution towards the maintenance of the works provided for the relief from flooding of the lands which they owned. The Government decided to depart from that recommendation, and I would say that, in doing so, they made a very wise decision, for the reason that our experience and the experience of all those who have been associated with the work of arterial drainage has been that there have been numerous delays as well as a considerable number of other objections associated with this whole question of the separate drainage rate paid by each individual as recommended in the report to which I have referred.
Now in the report of that commission from whatever information they had, largely information that was placed at their disposal by the Office of Public Works, they arrived at a figure as to what an arterial drainage scheme would cost and the figure which they suggested from the rough calculation which they were able to make and from the figures to which I have referred was a sum of £7,000,000. There was nothing firm about that figure, as anyone can see by perusing the report. The members of the commission safeguarded themselves perfectly on that matter. A good many changes have taken place since then, short as the period has been. If one were asked to make a shot at what these proposals, if implemented, would cost, I would imagine that you would be likely to get a much more substantial figure than that which is given in the commission's report.
The report refers to another matter which I think it would be well that Deputies should know, and not only Deputies but the outside public who have been keenly interested over a very long period in this whole matter of drainage. When Deputies go down to their constituencies, following the introduction of a measure of this kind where figures so enormous as the figures mentioned here appear, they will be met by people whose lands have been flooded for a number of years, and merely because proposals such as these have been introduced these people will get it into their heads that relief will be brought to their doors in a very short time, and when I use the expression "brought to their doors" I mean brought to the lands which are affected and which are owned by them. I think, therefore, that it would be well for Deputies, if they have not already done so, to look up that part of the report which refers to the rate at which the sum mentioned as the gross sum necessary can be spent and see what the commission had to say as to the rate at which that sum would be expended. They mentioned a sum of, roughly, £250,000 per annum. That commission was composed of men who had a practical knowledge of this subject, and also of men who have considerable engineering ability.
These men gave it as their opinion that the maximum sum that the central drainage authority was likely to be able to expend in any one year would be £250,000, and they conditioned that statement by saying that it would take at least a period of five years before the organisation necessary could be built up so as to enable that central drainage authority to expend that sum. I am referring to that in order to refresh the minds of those who represent constituencies in which the flooding of land is a problem and in order that people outside whose lands are affected will not be deceived or disappointed because of the fact that even though we may get, in the course of a few weeks' time, this machinery into existence, that relief will not be brought to them as quickly as they would like or as quickly as those who will be responsible for the operation of this measure would like. If the sum of £7,000,000, which as I said was a very rough estimate, should prove to be a correct estimate of the total cost of the work that is envisaged in the proposals now before the House, and if the commission should be correct in stating that the maximum that we can expend would be £250,000 per annum, it is not very difficult to find out how long it would take that drainage authority to get to the last scheme and to the last district.
The Government pressed very strongly since 1941, following the publication of this report and its acceptance by them in principle, for the production of these proposals now before the House. They are equally anxious to-day to make a start on the work as soon as these proposals become law. With that end in view, for some time past whatever machinery and equipment we happen to have in our possession has been in the course of being reconditioned to the best of our ability. As Deputies are aware, it is not possible now to purchase that particular type of plant and, therefore, until such time as a change comes over the world, we will have to do with what we have. As I say, the Government were anxious to have these proposals introduced. They are anxious now that the work should start as soon as possible on a scheme. I have indicated to you the steps that we have taken, which are the only steps that we could possibly take in the circumstancese, in order that we may be able at least to start work on one scheme as soon as possible after this Bill becomes an Act.
When these proposals were circulated Deputies got with them an explanatory memorandum, and the fact that that explanatory memorandum has been issued more or less relieves me of the necessity of taking up these proposals and giving an analysis section by section of these 57 sections. I do not think that any such analysis is necessary. I propose to touch upon the main features and outlines of this Bill, and to do it in Parts rather than in sections. There are eight Parts in it altogether.
Deputies who have had any contacts with local bodies and experience of the operation of the arterial Drainage Act of 1925 will realise and understand immediately why, largely, that and previous Acts were not entirely successful. Under the 1925 Act—and, in fact, under the whole drainage code as it existed for the last 100 years— the initiative for the institution of a drainage scheme depended upon the local landowners. We are not so much concerned with what the Acts prior to 1925—the Acts of 1842 and 1863— contain, but the Act of 1925 provided that it was necessary for six landowners to petition the county council with a view to having an arterial drainage scheme instituted. The county council concerned had to pass a resolution approving of the petition and, following the taking of those steps, the resolution and the petition were forwarded to the Board of Works, who in turn proceeded to make the necessary examinations of the district, and so on. It will easily be seen that that procedure was not likely to produce the sort of methodical approach to a solution of this drainage problem that is needed, inasmuch as it almost certainly meant that the schemes to be carried out would be in areas where the best results were likely to be obtained. They depended. too, on the submission of the scheme to the land owners who, if 51 per cent. of them voted against it, could reject it. It enabled landowners, on tributaries to the river proposed to be drained, to object to the inclusion of certain tributaries and in every way it gave to a number of people a right to interfere and impede, which was bound to militate against the successful working of drainage under that Act.
Coming, then, to compare the approach made to this question under the 1925 Act and the suggestions or proposals contained in the Drainage Commission's Report, I may say that what is contained in this Bill is very substantially different. In Part I of this measure, there are three sections which are of no vital importance and to none of which do I propose to refer. In Part II, Section 4 gives to the drainage authority to be set up the power and the right to initiate a drainage scheme themselves without request from anybody. I think that is one of the most important aspects of this Bill. That procedure will, we hope, result in a much more satisfactory approach to a solution of the problems associated with the flooding of lands. Section 4 gives a number of other directions which are not of great importance. When you compare the procedure laid down in Section 4 with the procedure provided for in previous Arterial Drainage Acts, you appreciate at once the important departure contained in this measure. The next section to which I propose to refer is Section 12, where power is taken, where the drainage authority finds that it has not acquired all the land or included all the things that it should have included in the published scheme, to enable the central authority to amend and extend. These are the two sections that, at this stage of our examination of the measure, appear to me to be important.
Part III of the Bill is one that I believe will make a general appeal, especially to those who already own lands in drainage districts. Sections 21, 22 and those following, provide for the fixation of an appointed day, as and from which all existing drainage districts, all trustees and all drainage boards will disappear, and the districts for which they were responsible will transfer for maintenance purposes to the local authorities in which those districts are situated.