Untitled

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19666, 9 July 1929, Page 12

FREE ACCESS TO WHARVES. IS IT DENIED BY LAW? QUESTION STILL UNSETTLED. Whether or not there is anything in the Act of 1877 or in any other legislation to prevent complete freedom oi access to the wharves at Lyttelton was • question asked by the Lytielton bour Board recently oi its «*«««• j His reply, covering three and a ta*u foolscap pages, waa considered at yesterday s meeting ot the rd > bu * h ': was apparently so comprehensive «»« members, having read it, took «*«="* opposite views as to what it laid down. gome held that it found nothing in any legislation which would prevent tiet access to the wharves. Others h*.M that it did not affirm the right of tree access. Those holding the former view *ore in the majority, but the Board refused to adopt the opinion and referred it for further discussion to a meeting of the Harbour Improvement Committee. . , ... The original deputation which waited en the Board ashed it to prepare the necessary empowering Bill so that the Acts might be amended so as to give free access. Mr H. M. Chrystall urged extreme caution in drafting legislation. Relation* between the Harbour Board and the- Railwav Department were unsatisfactory: The Railway dictated to the Harbour Board. The trouble had come •bout in the early days, owing to lacK of foresight and the acquisition ot power bv the Railway was not altoaether intentional. But there was little doubt that its policy of "grab' was •well exemplified in Lyttelton. As this land of monopoly grew the tyranny mereased arid commerce was held up. "Perhaps you do not know it, continued Mr Chrystall. "but in Wellington only 7 per cent, of the cargo is handled direct from the trucks to the ehip. In Lyttelton it is 100 per cent., and this, in my opinion, is the reason whv the port suffers." Owing to the railways, tho control of the wharves had been taken out of the hands of the Harbour Board and they had to get it l»ack. The way to do this was not by scrapping railways but by working in harmony with them. > Mr Chrystall gave notice of motion as follows: "That the Board's solicitors be Jnstrncted to dra.ft the necessary legislation to give effect to the Prime Minister's grant to free access to the Wharves, in'such'a way and in such a manner as.to constitute this Board the sole ruling, authority over its own property with power to lay out the Port to suit any transport service, road or tail, as .in Auckland and Wellington." Mr E. J. Howard, M.P., said that Mr Chpystall had shown nothing wrong in what the Board intended doing, but his speech seemed the airing of a grievance against our national railway system. The trouble was that New Zealand had really too many ports. It was no use comparing bur harbour facilities with those of the Port of London, for instance. He quoted the port Durban, where the goods were handled by the one authority—tho railway—right from the time they left the consumer till the time they reached the market. That, in his opinion, was an ideal system. "There is nothing in the 1577 Act Which will prevent us having free access to the wharves,'' declared Mr Howard. «*WSjr'..ask'.tfee Frame Minister togive, ns something we have already got? The secretary: The position is that wo could have the vehicles on the Wharves to-morrow if the wharves were made wider. _ _ •

The chairman (Mr H. Holland, M.P.V. But isn't it a fact that we can't prevent the railway putting rails ou them, ■while they can prevent us from going over those rails 1