Harbour Commission

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 202, 10 August 1927, Page 7

Harbour Commission

Cross-examination of Mr. Jull Concluded. RE-EXAMINED BY MR. GRAY MR. HIGGINS GIVES EVIDENCE. Mr. Lusk continued his cross-ex-amination of Mr. Jull at yesterday’s sitting of the Harbour CommissionDo you think that people would prefer to live there in preference to living near Napier South?—Well, I certainly would lor one. Well, what do you think if land agents say that there would be no demand for it if other areas were available?—The land agents have made valuations about there for over £l,BOO. What do the Education authorities want an area of six acres for a new school if there were no prospects ? They must have a school, but how many sites have the board that they, can’t let?—None. You say that the Borough Council does not want reclamation?—Some Napier people don’t waiit the ponds reclaimed in case it should make a basin for the Inner Harbour. Napier is the most densely populated town in New Zealand?—l believe that is so. The rente are abnormally high?— They are. How much reclamation has the board put on the market since 1911? —I can’t say, but that does not indicate all the reclamation work that has been done by the board. Large areas have been taken in hand but not yet completed. Your objection to the Borough Council reclaiming an area adjacent to the river was because of the board having to part with its endowment ?- Yes, and because of a scheme that the board has in hand. 1 stated that in dealing with reclamation at the port the ponds would be dealt with first, while in regard to reclamation for Napier the board was now promoting legislation, when it was hoped io reclaim the Awatoto block, which could bo secured the more cheaply, and adjoined the borough and was also the more accessible. Resuming his cross-examination after lunch, Mr Lusk asked Mr. Jull if the Napier Borough Borough Council made formal application for the Richmond Block, making it clear that the borough wanted to have reclamation but not to make profit out of it?—That is so. Would you, as chairman of the board, be prepared to^ enter into such an arrangement?—No, because a great portion of the most valuable part would be wrested from the board. What do you mean by that?—That the council be reimbursed for the work. Would you agree to that?—No. In your 1926 arrangement the principle of disposing of endowments was included?—Yes, for a limited area for borough purposes. You agree that the land should be urgently reclaimed?—Yes. As soon as the river question is settled a good portion could be put on the market without further reclamation. The council intimated that it would only reclaim areas as required. When we sought power to do the work the board met opposition from the Department. Mr. Furkert said that the board was paying too much attention to reclamation instead of to the harbour. Much of the area near Taradale could be best raised by spoil from the Inner Harbour, thereby doing two works at once. The lands would be more valuable if contiguous to a deep water, and they could be reclaimed by spoil from the harbour. This concluded Mr. Xusk’s crossexamination and Mr, Gray proceeded to re-examine Mr. Jull, SUPPORTER OF INNER. HARBOUR, Witness, to Mr. Gray, said that he was a wholehearted supporter of the Inner Harbour, believing that it would serve the best interests of the town. He, personally, had no pecuniary interest although there was a feeling among business men of the town that should the Inner Harbour be completed the centre of business would gravitate from its present position, Mr, Jull said that the number ol vessels drawing over 20 feet that visited the Breakwater as stated by Mr, Lusk was not commensurate with the money expended on the Breakwater. Cullen and Keele reported in 1912 that, in their view, no sand drift existed. They were forti fled in this opinion by the results of the dredged patch, and later in a further report they confirmed that opinion, and further, by Holmes and Sons’ report on the soundings, which had shown that scouring rather than shoaling had taken place in the channel. The embankment was part of the Inner Harbour scheme. An agreement was entered into between the Minister and the board for a structure to carry a road and a railway. It was suggested that as Mr., Fraser was not Minister of Marine the Department knew nothing of it. The bill, however, went before Parliament, Witness desired that the Commission should recommend that the board be recouped for a portion of the expenditure on the embankment over and above the Government’s contribution. The Public Works Department would not of themselves have constructed the embankment where it was had it not been for consideration of the HarbouBoard for its requirements of a harbour. The Department had considered putting a bridge across near the old Westshore bridge. The Minister was approached by opponents of the Inner Harbour to construct the line across the harbour by the shortest route to strangle the prospects of the Inner Harbour. It was idle to say that the Department had no knowledge of what had happened. The board had erected a new West Quay of a different type, and although the depth alongside was only about 20 feet it would in no way interfere with dredging to any depth in the channel, WORK AT WEST QUAY. The work done at the West Quay and dredging was authorised by ar. Order-in-Council, continued Mr. Jull. The board’s funds had not been dis. posed of extravagantly as all work was done under the supervision of engineers and on professional advice. While the present area on the eastern side of the Inner Harbour was he “dangerous goods” area it was possible that oil in much larger bulk would be brought to the port. The site occupied bv the old freezing works would lie ideal, as a deep sea wharf could be had alongside. He was confident that should the nondr be reclaimed they would be readily

taken up. The demolition of the old bridge would entail hardship upon workers who lived at Westshore. In regard to the proposals for reclamation by the Borough Council, all the board had got'from them was that they wanted to acquire the area and would themselves reclaim it from time to time. They proposed that instead of excavating a hole and so raising the land to dredge spoil from the board’s endowments to the west of the Taradale road and so ruin the board’s endowments. He submitted that the board had better facilities and equipment for doing such work than the Borough Council. There was divided opinion among the Borough Council as to whether they should take the hoard’s land and keen them as endowments of their own or reclaim the area and sell it. OUGHT TO BE A LESSON. The experiences of the High School Board ought to be a lesson, continued Mr, Jull. Some years ago they had an endowment of 10,000 acres neat Wairoa, They got authority to -ell the 10,000 acres at £1 per acre. They received the money and built a school. Now it is tumbling down -nd the money is gone. To-day that block is worth about £150,000. He was strongly opposed to the board disposing of its endowments, except in old small lots. - The board's form of lease had been most satisfactory to all as reasonable periods wer--given between valuations. The whole rating district had allowed itself .0 lie rated for loans hut it had always been held out to them that the lands would recoup all expenditure. Mr. Barton: You said that voi: expected to renew your loans of £260,000 for 5} per cent. Did ’•ou see that a conversion loan last week in Dunedin was renewed at 5| per cqnt?—That is so. I may say I'at Dunedin holds a good proportion of the board’s debentures. They know a stood thing when they see it. Mr. Barton: It should be obvious that it Dunedin has to pav 5J per cent, that Napier will have to pay at least as much. You said that vor had a general wharfage of 4/-. At the Inner Harbour the board received 3/10 profit and at the Breakwater 2/8?—In the new charges 1/- per too haulage wa s being charged on cargo from the Breakwater, This concluded Mr. Jull’n evidence after having been in the witness-box for over 19 hours, over a period f nearly four days. MR HIGGINS LN THE BOX. Patrick Francis Higgins, member if the Napier Harbour Board representing Napier Borough since April, 1925. said he had made a close study of the harbour question. He repre sented the members of the board who support the Breakwater proposal. He was conversant with the earhei reports referred to bv Mr Jull. He was not taking much interest in local affairs when Cullen and Keele reported in 1912. In 1920. when proposal was tqade to borrow money for the Inuer Harbour he took sn active part in combating the prouosals. but which were endorsed bv the ratepayers. He considered the results uf the expenditure of that money were unsatisfactory, having i view the promises made by the boan, -t the time of the poll In his opinion' they had not kept faith with ratepayers, one reason being that they had not completed a harbour. There was a considerable amount of the loan not expended. At the time the board promised that the reclamalion. which would be incidental to the construction of the Inner Harboui would more than pav its total cost. The board at the time pointed nu that R would have a valuable nlan: to the good and a harbour would be completed in three years not costing the ratepayers a shilling. The bar liour would provide for the requirements of the port for many yea* allowing for vessels drawing 32 feet. ; Witness then put in some propaganda that was distributed bv the board at the time of the polls in 1920. THE RESULTS. Continuing, witness said that the results were that the Inner Harbour would not accommodate vessels draw ing more than 15 feet, there had been no reclamation, and the board had no valuable plant as it promised; It was not possible to complete the Inner Harbour with the monev available. The interest on the Inner Harbour loan was about £12,000 per annum. It could be seen that the board was not keeping faith with the ratepayers and that the scheme could not be completed with the funds available to accommodate a deep sea vessel, and as there was grave doubt as to whether any further loan authority could be obtained by the board, ami as the expenditure of the remaining sums would be abortive, some of the ratepayers took action. At the time the hoard adopted the Breakwater proposal in January, 1926. estimates were prepared by the secretary showing ivhat the board’s position would be for the years 1927 to 1932 for a loan of £500,009 f° r the development of Cullen and Keele’s Breakwater scheme. It was shown that the board could carry on the scheme within its resources and would be in a position to abolish rates on land within that period. THE 1926 PETITION, In referring to the petition of 1926 (before it was circulated) witness said that it was drawn up and shown to Mr. Jull as chairman of the Harbour Board. Witness suggested that as the board appeared to be in a dilemma in regard to its policy be should father it. hut he could not see his way to do that. It was published in the press, receiving full publicity At about this time Mr. Roach, a member of the board, moved that the hoard should submit its affairs to a Commission. The Inner Harbour members opposed the motion which was lost. The petition was presented to Parliament and referred to the Bills Committee, presumably as thN committee would be considering the board’s 1926 bill and one had bearing upon the other. The statement made by Mr. Jul] that the bill wa s not given a fair hearing was not true The committee sat all day, which was an unusual thing for a Bills Committee. At the end there were seven members present who unanimously recommended the prayer of the petitioners to Parliament. In the 1927 elections lor borough representatives, four members were returned pledged to support the finding of the Commission. One of the other seven hail given him authority to say that in the event of the Commission finding in favour of the Breakwater he would go hack to the electors. As far as he could say the engineers who had reported on a deep water harbour had reported in favour of the Breakwater. The 1914 Loan Act was subject to the approval of the rate payers. In October of the same year the board contracted with the Public Work s Department to build an embankment to cost £47,000 aud the

time for its completion was two years. The board had committed itself to spend £27,000 out of revenue which was an undue strain upon its finances as it was only in the position to meet its outgoings The board, without the authority if the ratepayers, committed itself to the Inner Harbour by going on with the embankment. The 1917 amendment to the 1914 Act empowered the board to spend £50,000 of the £200.000 on the embankment without a poll of ratepayers, and so the board was helped out oi a serious position. The £50,000 was used to recompense lie board for its expenditure out of revenue on the embankment. At the time of the poll in 1920 the £50.009 had been spent on the embankment, being then only about half completed. TRADE OF rHE PORT. Quoting from the New Zealand Year Book 1927 witness said that the increase of population from 1891 u 1906 in Hawke's Bav had been at the rate of 130 per cent, as against Canterbury 76, Marlborough and Nelson each 45, and Otago 29. Regarding the trade of the port the board’s annual report for 1926 showed that the trade was increasing Mr. Barton: The exports between 1921 and 1926 show a decrease, while the imports show a great increase. Mr. Gray pointed out that the slump accounted for large quantities of wool being held back from shipment. Witness, again quoting from the Year Book, said that Napier occupied sixth position as a port for the value of imports, and pointed out that it much exceeded that of New Ply. mouth. Wpnganui, Gisborne, and Timaru. It was also shown that in the table of exports Napier’s position for the Dominion was fourth, being approximately £1,000,000 below Lyttelton and being considerably greater than Dunedin, Wanganui. New Plymouth aud Gisborne. At the ports mentioned other than Napier extensive harbour improvements were being carried out. In tonnage the port of Napier was second in exports oi wool and second in exports of meat for New Zealand. Woo) exported from Napier was fifth for the Do minion. All imports were economically coast-borne to Napier as a distributing centre, mostly coming from the South Island or overseas. The main exports of wool. meat, skins, and dairy produce, because ol the geographical position of Napier, were assured. The prospect of trade development was the export of fruit, butter and cheese and fresh bailed lucerne hay. In regard to the latter product witness had recently heard of a big order that was lost to ho district because of the cost of lighterage. He understood that there were possibilities of this trade developing. The prospect of imports were artificial manures, motor cars and general cargo. In regard to the manures imported from overseas the cost of lighterage was held to be a heavy burden. The East Coast railway would be a new feature to the port of Napier. The subdivision of big estates, artificial manuring, and more extensive famrug, would result in increased production. LIGHTERAGE COMPLAINTS. Witness asserted that complaints of goods damaged by lighterage were frequent. Benzine in tins often hau to be reconditioned. Fruit was not exported because of the damage through lightering. On the lightering of mutton he believed that the charge was 6d per carcase. Wharfage accommodation would not only elimin ate lighterage but would overcome the difficulty of stevedore charges. It would also encourage direct shipment to Napier and the elimination of transhipment charges, which were about 22/- between Wellington and Napier and 24/6 between Auckland and Napier. The delays in delivery as mentioned by Mr. Jull largely referred to drapery which had to be delivered promptly in order to be to hand for the season. The work of transhipping was carried on by the same firm that conducted the lighter ing. Any reductions in their business would no doubt be a serious matter to the shipping company. This port had been subject for some tune to an arbitrary rate on overseas vessels operating on the Atlarftic and Pacific coasts of America, which amounted to three dollars per ton. It was considered that there was some significance between that amount and lighterage but on that he could not obtain any evidence. It operated oil vessels working the Breakwater and it was suggested that there should be a refund when lighterage was not incurred. He could not learn a reason for it and understood that it had been removed from vessels operating from New York, but not from the Pacific coast. He understood that Wanganui had also recently benefitted by the rate being removed on trade from New York.

At this stage the proceedings were adjourned until this morning,