AMALGAMATION PLAN

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 12419, 4 August 1938, Page 3

AMALGAMATION PLAN

EVIDENCE BEFORE COMMITTEE OBJECTIONS BY HARBOUR BOARDS TAURANGA VIEW Evidence from several harbour boards was heard by the select committee on the Local Bodies Amalgamation Schemes Bill at Wellington on Tuesday, -boards tendering statements objecting to amalgamation on the grounds that harbour board work is not allied to the work of other local bodies. Evidence was presented by Mr S. J. Castle, acting on behalf of the solicitors for the Harbours Association of Zealand, but he explained that it was on behalf of the boards concerned and not on behalf of the association. The association was only acting as a medium by which certain of the boards could place their views before the committee.

Mr Castle said his own opinion was that the bill had much to commend it. It was only common sense that some local bodies should amalgamate, but the work of harbour boards was peculiar and he thought it might be advisable to treat them like hospital boards and exclude them from the provisions of the bill. Centralisation might lead to neglect. He agreed that road boards, river boards and rabbit boards should be controlled by counties, but harbour boards were doing work quite apart font other local authorities.

Mr Castle said the Tauranga Board had resolved that, while expressing no opinion on the matter of local body amalgamation generally, it was unable to see any advantage to be derived therefrom so far. as the Tauranga Board was concerned. The harbour was the natural outlet for a very large area beyond Taupo. The members, with the exception of the Chairman, gave their services- free and travelling expenses were comparatively small. During the twentythree years of the Board’s operations it had supplied all reasonable shipping facilities, kept harbour dues down to the lowest possible rates, built up valuable assets for future requirements, and had avoided any necessity for taxation. The Nelson Board expressed strong opposition to the whole principle embodied in the bill on the gi'ounds that the bill was contrary to all existing principles of local government.

The Patea Board considered amalgamation with, say, Wanganui or New Plymouth could not he worked as efficiently as the present system, nor that any economy would result.

The Whakatane Board stated that it considered harbour boards should he excluded from the provisions £>f the bill. The Bay of islands Board expressed the opinion that amalgamation would not be an advantage and that the county council could not give adequate control to harbour matters.

The Whangarei Board said it considered it would be folly to curtail or to in any way increase the cost of the services which the port of Whangarei was called upon to provide.

The Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon. W. E. Parry, commenting on the Nelson resolution, said it conveyed little or nothing to the committee. Some harbour boards had already taken steps to fall into line with the provisions of the bill. Taranaki bodies wanted to amalgamate and it was gratifying to know that some were moving along that road. Everyone agreed that amalgamation was a good thing for the other. The committee adjourned until next Tuesday.