The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1922. AN UNSATISFACTORY COMPROMISE.

Gisborne Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6319, 23 February 1922, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1922. AN UNSATISFACTORY COMPROMISE.

The full report of f.ic proceedings in the House with reference to the position of the Waiapu and Uaiva Counties in respect of the new harbor proposed to be built in Poverty Bay indicates that a rumpus of no mean order developed. It will, be remembered that in the Gisborne Harbor Board Enabling Bill of 1919 power was granted to the Gisborne Harbor Beard to borrow £1,000,000 for the purpose of constructing an outer harbor. In the preamble to the measure, it was stated, inter alia, that the proposed harbor would b? of use and benefit to the north east coast of New Zealand as well as to the port of Poverty Bay and shipping generally. But, for all that, the Act cl id not give the County of Waiapu (which then contained the area now included in Matakaoa County) nor the County of Uawa which are, of course, situate along the north-east coast of tills Dominion any voice in the matter cf the class of* harbor to be established or as to how much should be expended upon the works. These counties were invited to take up the role of passive spectators, who might or might not, later on, be called upon to rate themselves to assist in the support cf the proposed harbor, in connection with the establishment of which, as we have stated, they were not to be allowed any say. In short, although the “harbor district” with reference to the proposed harbor was set out in the Act to bo the areas included within the boundaries of the Borough of Gisborne and the Counties of Waiapu, Uawa, \Yaikohu, and Cook and the Township of Mangapnpa, no meetings were to be held in Waiapu or Uawa Counties nor were the ratepayers of those, counties to be allowed to veto cm the loan proposal in respect of the proposed work. It is not open to question but that, although the House was asked to believe that the proposed harbor would be of benefit to the Counties of Waiapu and Uawa, the point had not been determined nor could it be determined until after the scheme were put into operation. But what was done to safeguard the interests of tlm harbor district apart from the counties mentioned was that provision was made that Courts cf Enquiry should be set up to settle whether or not any areas within those counties should be rated to assist in the upkeep of the proposed harbor and to what should he the extent of the rating. The form of this provision was certainly not in favor of the counties of Uawa and of Waiapu for it was expressly stipulated that the enquiries were to take place on the receipt by the Minister for Internal Affairs of an application in writing from the chairman of the Gisborne Harbor Board. It is not a matter for surprise that the coastal counties should have become dissatisfied with the position in which the Act placed them. Although two years have gone by since the Act was passed, the Gisborne Harbor Beard has not even taken a poll on the question of the establishment of the proposed harbor and the Board has not evinced any strong desire that no, further delay should take place in the holding of the required Courts of Enquiry. As the Act stcod, the Harbor Board might, if it so chose, put off the Courts of Enquiry for the next 10 or 20 years. In the meantime, 1 the coastal counties, -which have barber schemes of their own would not he likely to meet with success at the polls taken by them, in view of the contingent liability for rating arising under the Gisborne Harbor Board Enabling Act. The northern counties, last session, therefore petitioned the House praying that the Act be amended and, despite Mr Lysnar’s utmost endeavors on behalf of the Gisborne Harbor Board, a report by the ''Public Petitions M to Z Committee, recommending that the petition be referred to the Government for favorable consideration was adopted. A point strongly emphasised by Mr Lysnar was that the Act, as passed, was in the nature of a compromise. Mr K. S. Williams, however, fought equally hard to show that, when the so-called compromise was arranged, the ratepayers of the northern counties gained the impression that, the Courts of Enquiry were to be held as soon as possible after, the passing of the Act. The aim of the petition, it may be mentioned, was that the Courts of Enquiry should be held straight away and the House as we have indicated, signified its approval that the Government should amend the Act in that direction. II the Courts of Enquiry decide that the coastal counties are not liable to be rated, the Board will ‘still have , a remedy providing that the proposed harbor is vised by residents of those districts, in that it has power to charge higher clues on the production of those districts shipped on behalf of residents of Waiapu and Uawa and on articles from outside districts consigned to such residents.