Bill To Validate Napier Motels Causes Differences

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30531, 28 August 1964, Page 3

Bill To Validate Napier Motels Causes Differences

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, August 27. The right of a municipal corporation to conduct a motel and high-grade motor-camp in competition with private enterprise was vigorously debated in Parliament today, when the Napier City Motel Empowering Bill was given a second reading. The measure is a private member’s bill introduced by Mr J. G. Edwards (Opp., Napier) to set aside decisions by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal preventing the council from carrying on business at Kennedy Park, Napier’s main motor-camp.

Clashes occurred earlier when the Local Bills Committee of the House considered the matter. As a result, the bill was almost completely rewritten —but the council was permitted to carry on. with the operation of Kennedy Park at its present capacity.

The bill authorises the council to continue operating the motel, provided no alteration or replacement of any of the units is carried out to result in a higher standard of accommodation or the provision of more beds than at the time of the passing of the bill. The council may supply breakfast, but no other meals. Mr Edwards said the motels had been established as a result of public demand. The council had thought it was acting entirely within its rights, and the Supreme Court, while passing judgment against it, had expressed its sympathy. Converted Huts The park had been used by the Army during the Second World War and later the Army huts had been used to provide a transit camp. The council converted the huts to cabins, and as a result of public demand, built more. It had advertised its intention to raise a loan for this purpose, and no objections were made at that time. The Audit Office gave its ap-

proval and the loan was sanctioned by the Local Authorities Loans Board. The value of the buildings was now approaching £lOO,OOO, and the council thought too much ratepayers’ money was invested in them to let them fall into disuse. The alternative was to sell them to a private bidder, but if this were done, the public would lose a fine camping ground and a popular and cheap motor-camp. The council would also have no control over the use to which the park was put, and there would be nothing to stop the buyer subdividing it for residential housing. If the part of the camp on which the motels stood were sold, it would spoil the camping ground as a whole. Converted To Bill Mr A. E. Allen (Govt., Franklin), chairman of the committee, said his first reaction had been to oppose the bill, but after two full days of hearing submissions and several hours of discussion by the committee, he felt it should be passed. Several members of the committee, including himself, had had reservations about local bodies entering trading fields and competing with their ratepayers. .

There could be some consideration given to having the council’s profits from the motels made subject to taxation, he said.

There had been some local opposition to the council’s action, but it had thought at the time that it was acting within its power. If the ratepayers objected, then they could take action at the next municipal elections to elect a council which would sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the motels.

Mr H. L. J. May (Opp., Porirua), said the council could not be accused of deliberately working outside the law as it had never exceeded what it understood it was entitled to do.

“Where do we stop?” Mr D. Maclntyre (Govt., Hastings) asked. “Are we to allow local bodies to move into any field they find profitable, whether it’s motels, hotels, or shops?” Board as Retailer For example, said Mr MacIntyre, the power board in his electorate was in the retailing field to quite a large extent. He. felt it should pay tax so as to make it competitive with smaller retailers. The House could extend the existing status quo for the Napier motels, he suggested, or it could act on any of three suggestions. These were that the motels and the land on which they stood should be sold by private tender to someone prepared to run them; that the council should wait till bookings ran out and then let the motels revert to the status of cabins, or that the motel business should be separated from the rest of the council’s business, and that rates, water and electricity charges, wages and depreciation be in a separate account and that tax be paid on the profits. He favoured the last idea, said Mr Maclntyre. It would remove the objection that the council was competing unfairly with private moteliers. “No Private Enterprise”

Mr A. J. Faulkner (Opp., Roskill), said Mr Maclntyre’s principle was out-dated. There was no such thing as truly private enterprise in New Zealand any more because of the dependence on central and local government Mr Maclntyre’s suggestion that the council should carve off a hunk of the park and sell it to the person with the largest amount of money was a complete negation of democracy.

Mr W. H. Brown (Govt., Palmerston North) said the committee had made its decision because of conditions peculiar to Napier. Mr Faulkner had indicated that he would like to have similar conditions applying to other parts of New Zealand. “He is for public enterprise. I am for private enterprise. That is the difference,” Mr Brown said.

Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Opp., Christchurch Central) said that the most important provision in the amended bill related to the fact that present amenities could not be extended. If the bill passed, more motels would be establishing in Napier.