ESTUARY PORT SCHEME

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21792, 26 May 1936, Page 17

ESTUARY PORT SCHEME

CAMPAIGN MAY BE INTENSIFIED

LEAGUE CONFIDENT OF SUCCESS

Confident that Parliament will accept its bills proposing a referendum on the estuary port scheme, the Port Christchurch League is looking forward to a busy year preparing and distributing propaganda and information in support of its scheme. At the annual meeting of the league last evening the 12 members who were present discussed with enthusiasm the chances of early success with their campaign.

Mr J. Longton, who presided, said that it would shortly be necessary to send representatives to Wellington to give evidence before the Labour Bills Committee in support of its bills seeking a referendum and asking for alterations in the constitution of the Lyttelton Harbour Board. If the bills were passed there would be a busy period ahead of the league. Much publicity and propaganda would have to be undertaken, and possibly a paid secretary with a special office appointed. He was confident that money would be available in support of the scheme, and could say that anything from £IOOO to £2OOO could be found to help the campaign along. The annual report, presented by the secretary, Mr R. B. Cotton, said that during the last year the executive had been almost continuously engaged in advancing the aims of the league. The time had now arrived when every member must do all that he could to enlist new members and by propaganda to strengthen the league’s position.

Opposing Leagues

Propaganda on the part of a few members of the executive of the Port and City League had revived the agitation for the tunnel road. These few people, by acting on the executive of various associations and, local had influenced some of them to advocate the construction of the tunnel road as a major relief scheme. The league had strenuously opposed this proposition, holding that the construction of the tunnel road without allowing access to the wharves to all traffic was a sheer waste of money, and that the cost of giving this access was prohibitive.

A deputation from the league waited on the Hon. R. Semple, Minister for Public Works, and he then suggested that a referendum of the people of North Canterbury would be the best method of determining which means of giving the province access to the sea should be proceeded with. In furtherance of this suggestion.' the Port and City League were~asked to cooperate with the Port Christchurch League in drawing jjp the necessary, bills to be presented to Parliament, but no reply was received to the request. The league’s solicitor, Mr G. P. Purnell, in conjunction with Mr Longton, then went into the matter and two bills the Port Christchurch Referendum Bill, and the Lyttelton Harbour Board Act. 1936, were drawn up. Bills Presented These bills had Ijeen presented to the House of Representatives on May 12 by Mr T. H. McCombs, M.P. The thanks of the league were due to Mr McCombs for attending to the presentation of the bills. If the bills become law the league would have to work energetically for its cause and it was for this reason that the co-operation of every member to the full extent of hi? ability was sought. The thanks of the league were due especially to Mr Longton and to Mr Purnell for work done in the drafting of bills and representing the league on deputations, and to Mr S. McAllister for energetic and ever-ready help that he had given during the year. The balance-sheet showed a credit of £8 0s lid for the year. The league's standing deficit had been decreased to £l9 16s Id.

Mr Cotton, speaking to the report and balance-sheet, said it was earnestly hoped that more members would be enrolled. It was necessary to enlist the support of the public before the referendum was taken, and he hoped the membership would. increase to 300 or 400. Although there was agitation against the estuary port scheme he did not think that would make much difference. The people of Christchurch recognised what a great asset the port would be. It was only necessary for a few points to be explained to them. Mr S. W. Richardson said that as soon as it became known that a referendum was to be taken people would be falling over thefnselves to join the league. Election of Officers Officers were elected as follows: Patron, Mr C. S. McCully; president, Mr J. Longton; vice-presidents, Mr G. P. Purnell, Dr. J. W. Crawshaw; honorary secretary, Mr R. B. Cotton; honorary treasurer, Mr P. L. Mansell; executive, Messrs S. McAllister, S. W. Richardson, H. M. Hall, A. Shaw, T. H. Harker, R. B. Spiers, A. Wildey, F. C. Jenkin, C. D. Matson, G. Cowie, E. Peake, and B. W. Younger; honorary auditor, Mr A. C. Hullett; honorary solicitor, Mr G. P. Purnell. Motions were passed congratulating and thanking officers of the league on the work they had done during the year, and thanking the press for publicity given to the league’s arguments. OPPOSITION TO PROPOSALS SUGGESTED REFERENDUM DISCUSSED ATTITUDE OF LYTTELTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

Proposals by the Port Christchurch League for the reconstitution of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, and for a, referendum on the Port Christchurch proposal, were objected to by the Lyttelton Borough Council at its meeting last night. Copies of two bills which have been introduced into Parliament by the Port Christchurch League were received from the Lyttelton Harbour Board.

The Mayor (Mr F. E. Sutton) said the Ashburton County Council had already objected to the proposals, and the Auckland Chamber of Commerce had carrieid a resolution protesting

i against the bill to alter the constitu- ; tion of the board. | Cr. J. D. Sargentina asked what attitude the Harbour Board was taking. The Mayor said the board had appointed a committee to prepare evidence against the proposals. Cr. W. W. Toy said the representation of the payers of dues should not be eliminated, to provide an extra member for Christchurch. The Mayor moved that the council protest against the reconstitution of the board on the grounds that the proposed constitution would not be any better than the present one. The motion was seconded by Cr. Toy and carried. The Mayor then moved that the council protest against the Port Christchurch Referendum Bill, as the council was of opinion that the proposal was not warranted. Cr. G S. Morris asked whether the bill dirt not provide for a referendum on both the Port Christchurch scheme and the tunnel road scheme. > . Cr. Sargentina said the Minister d*aa, suggested that a referendum should be taken on both proposals. The Mayor *said the bill did not vide for a referendum bn the tUlipfl* , road proposal. ' " ■ ~,’~ The motion was carried.. ’’