PARLIAMENT TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD BILL

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27795, 21 October 1955, Page 14

PARLIAMENT TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD BILL

House Restores Rating Powers (From Our Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, October 20. Only 20 Government members opposed amendments restoring rating powers in the Timaru Harbour Board Loan Bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives after a debate lasting three hours and a half this evening. Opponents of the amendments, which returned to the bill the vital clauses deleted by the Local Bills Committee, argued that the user should pay. and some members of the committee said that the Timaru board had not justified its right to seek additional ratin* powers, because its funds and revenue were sufficient to finance the expenditure of £300.000 for an oil wharf and a n«*w dredge. It was contended that the Timaru and Lyttelton cases for ratine had no connexion, as the Lyttelton board had never enjoyed rating rights.

Pledges that the Timaru board would increase its dues to the limit ot the increased charges authorised under the Lyttelton Empowering Act. so that there would be no unfair competition, were quoted during the debate. The reinstatement of the rating clauses was made possible by the assistance given by the Prime Minister (Mr Holland) to the member for Timaru (Mr C. L. Carr> and Mr A. J. Davey (Government. Waimate). who moved the amendments. The Prime Minister, with six other Ministers, supported the amendments, for which all the Opposition members voted. For the first time on record. Mr Holland anG the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash •, went into the same lobby. The rating amendment was carried by 45 votes to 20. Ministers who opposed it were the Minister of Marine (Mr J. K. McAlpine*, the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr S. W. Smith), and the Minister of Industries and Commerce (Mr D. J. Eyre). Because the bill had been very thoroughly dealt with by the Local Bills Committee, he was in a very difficult and invidious position tn moving the second reading of a bill with which he entirely disapproved, said Mr Carr. As introduced, the biii had 16 clauses and a schedule, and it came back from the committee with only five clauses and the schedule mutilated. “Deep Obligation to Mr Holland” He wished, he said, to express his deep obligation to the Prime Minister. He was not suggesting that Mr Holland had taken sides. This was a purely non-party measure, but Mr Holland had realised that a select committee with a majority of one could practically hold a pistol to the head of Parliament Mr J. N. Massey < chairman of the Local Bills Committee): Huh. “Yes.” continued Mr Carr, “the chairman of the committee snorts, but such is the case.” After the bill was referred back to it, the committee tossed the bill back to the House, said Mr Carr. That could go on indefinitely, but Mr Holland had been most helpful and had arranged with the Law Drafting Office to restore the salient and essential features of the original bill, and he had arranged with Mr Davey to move the restoration in committee. All bodies iu Mr Davey’s electorate were unanimously behind the original bill, and rating powers to carry out the necessary work. The slaughtered clauses woold be restored in committee. “I don't go round buying a fight, but I was very disappointed and surprised when the Local Bills Committee treated tne bill cavalierly,” said Mr Carr. “I never anticipated any difficulty. I feel members of the committee got off on the wrong foot, and are trying to cover their confusion ever since. In the early stages they appeared singularly obtuse. They couLyttelton Harbour Board Bill with the Timaru bill. Lyttelton had hitherto never had rating powers, and moreover there was objection to the grant of rating powers. In Timaru al'vays had rating powers.” The attitude of the Local Bills Committee was singularly inopportune and inappropriate, and difficult to underCarr. How could it sa^ln S, “you shan’t be allowed to help yourself in the way you indicate?” That was discouraging local enterprise, and the central government should not suppress local authorities whose electors wanted to rate themselves. The bill was for a loan of £300,000. but would lake £60.000 to do the job, and whether half was done by rates or from income or reserves was immaterial. Both the dredge and wharf were necessary and complementary. If members of the committee had thought that out the confusion would not have The board proposed to raise £50.000 in each year of 1956, 1957 and 1958, and £150,000 in 1960. Comparison with Taranaki There should be no party politics, but the Taranaki Harbour Board was given rating powers, although its revenue. was twice that of Timaru. which had 1 to meet with more competition from; Lyttelton, Oamaru. and Dunedin. Timaru’s mole was twice the length of Taranaki's, and Timaru’s maintenance charges were greater. The whole of the South Canterbury community had the fullest confidence in the board, said Mr Carr, and he hoped a considerable majority would have confidence in their member and implicit and complete confidence in Parliament in passing the legislation. AU along the board had anticipated that much of the work would be done out of increased port charges, said Mr Carr. Timaru charges would be increased to the limit of the additional Lyttelton charges. Nothing could be further from the truth than that Timaru wanted to compete unfairly with Lyttelton. The promise to confer with Lyttelton to the limit would be honoured. In Timaru and South Canterbury, all were users of the port and payers. The Government shibboleth of “make the user pay” was not only suspect, but meaningless. Directly or indirectly, all had to pay for the harbour, concluded Mr Carr. The harbour was essential for the welfare of the district, and the people were prepared to pay for it The user always had to pay. The Local BiUs Committee, of which he was a member, seemed to be in disgrace, said Mr W. H. Gillespie (Government, Hurunui). He was not prepared to accept Mr Carr’s charge of incompetence against the committee. Mr Cam I said you did it with the best will in the world. Duty of Committee The duty of the committee was to •'vet” local legislation, said Mr Gillespie. Its main duty was to protect other sections of the community. Rating at Timaru was the only question. New rating powers were sought. The committee did not seek to take away the rating powers at present enjoyed by the board. For his part, he was in no way critical of the Timaru board. It had done an excellent job. and its members were wide awake. The Timaru board, it was clear, did not need rating powers to service its loan, if it raised its charges in conformity with the Lyttelton increases. The estimates for the wharf were not property prepared. The chairman of the board (Mr W. H. Hall) was inconsistent in that at Ashburton in October. 1954 he had advocated opposition to the rating proposal in the Lyttelton bill. It was wrong that the board should have rating powers to build up a fund for the future. Opposing rating on the land. Mr Gillespie said they should move with the times and raise money by other than rating. Mr Gillespie said he was intrigued ** a leading article in “The Press,” he proceeded to criticise. «• G. Gerard (Government, Ash-

burton): It was inspired by the chairman of directors of the comoany. Mr Speaker ruled Mr Gillespie oui cf order in quoting comments on the Lyttelton bill. “We cannot have articles of editors or anybody els° criticising a select committee of the House.” said Mr Speaker. “It cannot be quoted.”

The article, continued Mr Gillespie referred to the attitude of the Local Bills Committee as being high-handed. He could not see where any highhandedness was exercised. The committee simply did its duty to the people, because it proved conclusively that the Timaru board did not need to rate. Pensioners and others in Timaru were paying increased rates because of the change of rating from the capital to the unimproved system, yet the board could raise its finance by raising its charges.

“Trade is being drawn from Lyttelton because the Timaru board, having rating powers, has been able to have lower charges.” said Mr Gillespie. He was assured by the Law Draftsman that the Timaru board, under the proposed bill, was limited to a security rate.

Mr W. T. Anderton (Opposition. Mount Eden) said the amendments should have been referred to the Local Bills Committee. He did not care twopence for the views of “The Press” or any other paper, because he had (done his best. He was impressed with the Timaru evidence. The cases of Timaru and Lyttelton were different. The major boards were wealthy, and were entirely different in their relationship to the community. The smaller ports like Timaru did not have the capacity without rating powers to improve the harbours.

He had received telegrams and letters saying that what he did for Timaru he would have to do for Lytteltion, Mr Anderton said. He would not accept dictation from outside the House. He would do the right thing. He could see the necessity in 10 years for Lyttelton to return asking for rating powers. Mr Speaker ruled any reference to the Lyttelton bill out of order. Timaru woula rate only if its revenue was insufficient to meet the charges on the loan, said Mr Anderton. It was not the duty of any select committee to tell a local authority how it should run its business.

Mr Gerard said that because he believed in the principle decided earlier, that the used should pay and the derating of land, he found himself in an awkward position. He was opposed to rating clauses in any bill, but there was a big difference between rating for Lyttelton and Timaru. One was a main port.

‘‘No Connexion Between Boards” A leading article in “The Press’" headed “Unwisdom” ran down the Local Bills Committee, Mr Gerard said. It tried to link the two bills. If the learned writer had studied the history of harbour boards, he would have found no connexion between the two boards.

The main ports had got along quite well for 70 years without rating powers. Timaru had had rating powers, and they would continue even if the bill as amended by the committee went through. It was necessary to have rating powers for the smaller boards to establish the ports. “The question has been asked, What right has the Local Bills Committee to interfere with the local people?.’ said Mr Gerard. “I believe it is the duty of the committee to give some lead as to whether a harbour board and rating authority reguires the rating or it doesn’t, and eep a balance. If rating was necessary, he would be one of the first to vote for it. The Timaru board was perhaps being too prudent, and wanted to build up reserves. He wanted to know the exact position, whether rating was necessary as security for the loan or for reserves. No representations had been made to him against the original bill, but unless he was satisfied that the rate was necessary, he proposed to do the unpopular thing and vote against the rating provisions. The modern thought was to get away from rating on land. The policy of Federated Farmers was the derating of land. The decision of the committee should not have been thrown over lightly. “Never has there been so much confusion over a local bill,” said Mr P. G. Connolly (Opposition, Dunedin Central). A committee on which the Government had a majority had emasculated the clauses which were being reinstated on the motion of a Government member. He would say it reeked of politics. It was the worst thing in the world when politics were introduced into a local bill. Timaru should have been granted the powers it sought. Mr Holland’s Comment “Frankly, I don’t think we can have unlimited time on a local bill,” said the Prime Minister after the debate had lasted two hours and a quarter. The people who had to pay the rate had not raised a single representation lin opposition to the proposition. He , could not understand why persons in other parts of New Zealand objected to Timaru people deciding for themselves (Opposition, “Hear, hear”). What was wrong about that? Mr F. Hackett (Opposition, Grey Lynn): I cannot understand why the committee brought down those recommendations.

Mr Holland replied that the simple explanation was that at the time the Timaru bill was introduced the Lyttelton board also introduced a bill to extend its facilities. There were objections to the rate for Lyttelton, which never had the right to rate. He believed the decision to deny Lyttelton the right to levy rates determined the committee in its decision to refuse the right to Timaru. Members on his side could vote as they liked, and some would oppose rating on- the land, he said. Was the House going to give Timaru the right to pay by the method the people wanted, or be influenced by methods Lyttelton thought best? The issue could be decided in five minutes. “Honest Mistake”

Mr Davey said that the duty of the Local Bills Committee was to construct, not to destroy. The committee had carefully linked the Timaru and Lyttelton bills, and had mutilated the Timaru bill. The committee had made an honest mistake. He agreed with the principle of the user paying, but it was not the function of the committee to establish the principle. Unfair competition with the stronger port of Lyttelton was not an issue. The oil companies wanted direct service to Timaru. and the users would save. The property owners in South Canterbury had had their values enhanced by rating for the port. It would be a sad day when local government was not allowed to work out its own destiny. On the evidence the committee found that the Timaru board could finance the works without additional rating powers, said Mr T. L. Hayman (Government. Oamaru). The chairman of the Local Bills Committee said it was not desirable to go on taxing capital. Timaru could meet its charges by increased dues. The Timaru board had £160,000 in reserves. and £25,000 in another account, said Mr Massey. The dredge could not be obtained for four years. The board was able to carry on without rating powers. The Postmaster-General (Mr T. P. Shand) said that Parliament’s authority did not extend to denying Timaru the right it sought. Those who voted in the noes lobby were Messrs Aderman, Eyre, George, Gerard. Gillespie, Hayman, Jack, Johnston, McAlpine. McKay, Maher Massey, Neale, J, Rae, D. M. Rae, Scott, Shelton, Sim, Smith, and Walsh,