MANUKAU HARBOUR CONTROL

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 234, 30 September 1908, Page 2

MANUKAU HARBOUR CONTROL

i # — . —* MR NAPIER'S STRICTURES. Recently we published a somewhat lengthy epistle from Mr W. J. Napier addressed to the Harbour Board, complaining bitterly that the Manukau Harbour Control Bill, prepared for presentation to Parliament this session, had been dropped. Mr A. Kidd, M.P., in whose charge the bill was placed, has taken exception to Mr Napier's communication, and in a letter read at the Harbour Board's meeting yesterday afternoon, in thanking the Board for its vote of thanks to him for his trouble in connection with the matter, expressed regret that a member of the Board should consider it his duty to make a porßonal attack upon him, and the Government in regard to the withdrawal of the bill. Mr Napier's only object could be to belitt/; him in the eyes of 1 the public. Mr Kidd enclosed a letter from the Minister for Railways, stating that he (the Minister) was fully aware of the importance attached to the proposal, and in view of the fact, had consulted his colleagues. He did not propose to enter into a discussion of Mr Napier's statements beyond saying that the facilities at Onehunga must be sufficient to meet the railway requirements. Mr Kidd's own efforts to secure what was required by the Board were too well known to require commendation from him. The Hon. E. Mitchelson said that he did not think that Mr Napier intended to cast any reflection upon Mr Kidd. He (Mr Mitchelson) took upon himself the whole responsibility of withdrawing the bill. When Mr Kidd was last in Auckland he had an interview with him, and Mr Kidd explained the position the Government had taken up. "and." added the Chairman, "without offering any advice to mc in any shape or fcrm, I told him I would write him a letter. That letter you have all soen, stating that the best course to pursue in the event of the Government declining to hand over the wharf would be to withdraw the bill. I did not think any member of the Board would to the Board taking upon itself such a large responsibility without having the right to take over the wharf. The Board subsequently decided to adopt the course suggested—to withdraw the bill. One of the principal reasons that influenced mc was that if the Board took over the harbour without the wharf it would entail a very large expenditure." In the first place, a wharf would have had to be erected, certainly at a cost of not less than £20.000." then they would have to get a dredger at a cost of £30.000, and they knew from experience that the annual cost of dredging was from five to six thousand a year. It would be absurd to aSk the merchants of Auckland and the people who pay dues here to expend such a large sum of money for the Manukau Harbour unless the Board had some opportunity of collecting revenue. He thought the Government had done a wrong thing in refusing to hand over the wharf endowments to the Harbour Board on consideration of the Board taking over the responsibility. The Government would not spend any money in improving the wharf accommodation. Only yesterday there were six or seven steamers trying to obtain a berth at the wharf. That was not a position for any wharf to be in. The Board would have been only too willing to have taken over the control of the harbour, and have done what the Government ought to have done years ago— make it an up-to-date harbour by making more accommodation. Mr Kidd was not to blame for withdrawing the bill; it was the recommendation of the Board. Mr. Napier said! that be thought a gentleman like Mr. Kidd, who had been so long in public life, would not have been so hypersensitive -with regard to criticism The statement that his (Mr. Napier's) sole object was to belittle Mr. Kidd was simply ridiculous. He was not aware when "he wrote his letter that the Board was "Ding into committee to immediately sanction the withdrawal of the Bill. The Chairman: The Board resolved, before it got your letter. Mr. Napier expressed surprise, and saidl that he thought the action of Mr. Kidd might have been more energetic, to put it mildly. He believed that if proper action had been taken, the bill would have become law. The information he had from Wellington strengthened him in that conviction. Mr. Hall-Jones' statement that the facilities must be sufficient for the , railway department showed the spirit iv , which the whole matter had been ap- ! proached. It was not the interests of ] the city of Auckland but the Railway | partment that must be satisfied 1 with the facilities at that port, though the whole . world knew that there were no facilities. . It Was the most disgraceful apology for a port in the whole dominion. The com- , mercial business of Auckland was ham- ; pered daily and hourly by the disgraceful . administration of that port by the Rail- , way Department. The first thing Mr. Kidd should have done was to convene ; a meeting of Auckland members and lay . the whole position before them, ask them [ what support they could) get, and insist i upon it being done. The Chairman said that Mr. Napier's i parliamentary experience should have ; taught him that no member could get a local bill through if it was opposed by the Government. The Board must take the sole responsibility for withdrawing the bill The letter was received.