HARBOUR BRIDGE BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 209, 4 September 1931, Page 5

HARBOUR BRIDGE BILL.

PROGRESS IN PARLIAMENT.

LOCAL BODIES UNANIMOUS

EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS,

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, Thursday,

The passage of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Bill through the House was advanced a further stage to-night, when the first nineteen clauses were passed in committee.- Only 40 minutes were available for consideration of the measure, and progress was reported at 10.30 p.m. In moving the committal of the measure, the Hon. A. J. Stallworthy, the member-in -charge, said that the Auck-j land local bodies had reached absolute unanimity in regard to the terms of the bill, which was really a charter for the Bridge Company to proceed along the lines indicated in the legislation. Every requirement of the Public Works, Marino and Treasury Departments had been met. While not adopting a hostile attitude towards the bill, Mr. W. • Lee Martin (Labour, Raglan), took exception to a clause that gives the Auckland City Council or the Northcote Borough Council the right to purchase the bridge after the expiration of ten years, and asserted that when a similar right was given regarding the acquisition of the Auckland trams from a private company, the ratepayers had had to pay a large sum for a track that required reconditioning, and for rolling stock that had to be rebuilt. He feared there might be opportunity for manipulation in connection with the bridge, and considered the clause should be deleted. Mr. C. H. Clinkard (United, Rotorua): It is most important to keep it in. Mr. Clinkard said there was no comparison between the case cited by Mr. Martin and the bridge. Mr. Martin: Both are parallel. Mr. Clinkard: I fail to see it. The local bodies should have the right to take over the bridge. It would hardly be reasonable to expect competition as to the price for the work, because it was a constructing company that was entering into the undertaking. The construction of the bridge would provide a great amount of work and he hoped the House would pass the bill without delay. Question of Interest Rates. "A coach and four could be .driven through the argument that it is undesirable to give power to local bodies to take over the bridge if they so desire," declared Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour, Auckland West). "Why, at the end of ten years we may be able to borrow money at one-fourth the rate charged for finance' to-day." (Hear hear.) Mr. Savage asked for an assurance from the Minister that the company would see_to it that as far as humanly possible New Zealand labour and material were employed in the construction of the bridge. Mr. Stallworthy: That assurance has been given in writing. Mr. Savage: I am pleased to hear it. It is a big thing in these days of depression. Mr. A. Harris (Reform, Waitemata) considered the work should be started at the earliest moment. Local 'bodies had asked for the right objected to by Mr. Martin, and it was highly probable, as suggested by Mr. Savage, that after ten years the rates of interest would be much lower than they were to-day. It might pay the local bodies handsomely to take over the undertaking at the end of that time, instead of waiting until it became their property. As soon as the construction started 200 men would be employed, and within six months the total would be brought to 1000. Objections Withdrawn. The bill was supported also by Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Labour, Auckland Suburbs), and on behalf of Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central), Mr. W. j. Jordan (Labour, Manukau), said that objections to certain clauses raised by a number of local bodies and sent to the member for Auckland Central had since been withdrawn, and they now had no objection to the bill going through. In committee 19 clauses were passed without discussion, and with the arrival of the 10.30 p.m.. adjournment progress was reported,,further consideration being deferred until next week. Several amendments were- circulated by Mr. Stallworthy. A new clause provides for payment by the company of any expenses incurred, by the Harbour Board, City Council or Northcote Borough Council relative to any investigations or the obtaining of information before giving approval to the scheme.' Another new clause sets out that the guarantees will not be released, nullified or altered by transfer of the bridge.