Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, May 15, 1935. FUTURE OF GREYMOUTH HARBOUR.

Grey River Argus, 15 May 1935, Page 4

Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, May 15, 1935. FUTURE OF GREYMOUTH HARBOUR.

In response to its recent representations either for relief from loan liability, or for the State subsidy to be kept up to an amount adequate to meet that liability, the Greymouth Harbour Board has elicited a new proposition. It had once been thought that the Government’s undertaking to pay an annual subsidy, in return for the Board endowment iipresented by the Grey-Brunner section of the railway, which the Government compulsorily appropriated, would mean the ' eventual liquidation .of the Board debt upon that basis. But the present proposition shows a loan liability of the Board amounting 1 to £260.000. which the Government is ready to take over on certain conditions. Evidently

one reason why the subsidy arrangement has. been departed fihm the Government from time to time was not merely that the State finances were strained, but that the authorities doubted I if the rate of expenditure on the port were prudent in view of all the circumstances, one of which, of course, was obviously the Government ’s idea of the role that the Midland Railway should play in the transport of the West Coast generally. The conditions laid down for taking over the liability on the Board’s loans, which originally were guaranteed by the State, include a cessation of the subsidy entirely; tire payment to the Government henceforth of the whole of the special rate charged upon coal shipped; the accumulated sinking fund against the Board debt to be transferred to the State; the State to be freed from any liability either to replace the dredge, the tug or any other port asset, or to reinstate any of the Board’s monetary reserves; the cancellation of the unexercised authority to. borrow afresh which the Board yet possesses under past legislation; and an obligation on the Board to have its budget subject to the existing control under the Greymouth Harbour Board Amendment Act of 1920 providing for the subsidy which says the Departmental intimation, implies rating if the expenditure of the Board should exceed its revenue. It would appear that the Board will be precluded from obtaining any new revenue by way of imposing an extra charge on the eoal shipped, and the question thus arises as to what resources there would remain for port conservation or improvement. AU of th e revenue apart from that on eoal above mentioned that goes now to the Government would still do so under the new proposition. Roughly this represents two thirds of the wharf charges, the Board’s third being, say, half a crown per ton. The charges today are unquestionably too high, but there does not under the new plan seem any prospect of a reduction. On the contrary, it would be a question of limiting harbour work to available revenue; and as regards timber, while there is at present a revival, the cutting out of supplies within th P area served by this port would suggest eventually a gradual but certain reduction in the revenue from that source. The proviso for budgetary control reopens the matter of rating, which, in turn, directs attention to the rating area. How far would this extend? That is a point that is calculated to give rise to controversy as surely as it did some years ago when the matter of rating was in question. What might with at least some show of reason, be inferred from the Departmental proposals is a disposition on the Government’s part to regard this port as now being secondary to the railway. Other ports have come to be -similarily regarded by the Government, which evidently falls in with the idea propagated by the authorities at the main

ports that shipping should b e con- j eentrated for their benefit. The ostensible reason advanced is that it is more economical, and also suits the shipping interests, but it also must lead to a congestion of population, which is a national evil. The immediate result of the change proposed would be to remove the dispute between the Board and the Departmental authorities regarding the debt service. The ultimate result, however. might very likeh be to restrict the means of port maintenance, unless, of course, the ratepayers wer e prepared to come to light. The final item in the Goverment proposition might reconcile them thereto, namely, that for th e future the Board shall be an elective body, instead of being a nominative one. Xo taxation with out representation is an old slogan. but it is a moot point whether the district would stand for the obverse, namely rating along with election. The authorities, natural, ly, have excluded the possibility j of further borrowing, in view of

the “poultice” that yet remain:-;. Certainly, with a liability to berated, the public could be relied upon to keep a keen scrutiny on the Board's expenditure just as the Government appears to have been doing. The difference might be that the Governmnt might not see an expansion of the port’s capacity in the same light as the Greymouth community in particular. The railway has certainly been of great service for the whol e West Coast, but that fact would scarcely be a justification for neglecting to obtain at the same tim e the best service that the port would be capable of giving. However. the Board has felt obliged to seek a readjustment, and may now ' feel that the consequences must bp accepted.