NEW PLYMOUTH HARBOR BILL.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LIII, Issue LIII, 9 April 1908, Page 5

NEW PLYMOUTH HARBOR BILL.

AND THE OPUNAKE HARBOR

DISTRICT.

A meeting called by Mr A. H. Moore, of Opunake, was held in the Opunake Hall on Wednesday, "to consider the Opunake Harbor Bill with a view to endeavoring to obtain relief for the coast districts, also, incidentally, the Opunake Harbor Bill." There were about 50 present, including Mr D. J. Hughes, a member of the New Plymouth Harbor Board.

Mr Dudley, Chairman of the Town Board, consented to preside after he had explained that he could not be identified with the objects of the meeting. He called upon the convener to address the meeting.

Mr A. H. Moore said that when a meeting was held by Mr- E. Maxwell, a member of the New Plymouth Harbor Board, a few weeks back, a motion had been carried which, inter alia, asked the Opunake Harbor Bill Committee to take certain steps. However, nothing had been done by it, and therefore he, as the mover of that motion, took upon himself to call a meeting •to deal with the matter. (Applause.) Mr Moore' dwelt on the history and. scope of the New Plymouth 1 Harbor Bill somewhat on the same lines as has previously been reported in the Stab. Continuing, he pointed out that the New Plymouth Board had power to collect a rate to pay interest and also to provide for a sinking fund. It had not carried out its powers to the full, land he contended that if it kad it would have wiped out the whole loan by this time. A large rate had , been called up for interest, but the Board had neglected the sinking fund os it would have been a thorny question. He entirely disagreed with the present demand for "a £300,000 loan, and recalled that when £75,000 was required in 1880 it was stated that that sum could not be done without. Up to the present time the Board had got on without it, and was in an immeasurably superior position as regards funds to what it was in 1880. The proposed Bill contained what he considered were five admissions, viz.: — 1. That the Waitara district could be' exempted. 2. That 'the Opunake Town District could be exempted. 3. That differential rating was fair. 4. That the rate would never be collected if the Bill became law. 5. 'jThat the revenue of the Board was ' sufficient to pay interest on £300,000. Continuing, the speaker said he understood that Waitara was being allowed to go scot fre_e because to bring them in would require two bills. His opinion was that if six Bills were necessary Waitara should not be allowed to avoid its fair responsibilities. He had a suspicion that there was another 'reason, and he proceeded to give figures to show that the voting of the Waitara district would have a material effect on the question as to whether a new loan was to be raised or not.

Mr Hughes: It is not one man one vote. Mr Moore: You 'will find that it is one man one vote when the Bill is law.

Continuing, he considered that the town should object to being cut out of the operations of the Bill. The residents should not be prevented in this manner from giving ' assistance and support to the ratepayers in the country just outside. The amount of rate over the whole town district was only about £8, and for that amount they should not be disfranchised. Then it was said that the rates would not be collected — well, surely to goodness if that was the case a decent' area could be exempted to allow an Opnnake harbor district being formed. He suggested that the district was merely being "kept" for future loan purposes and in order to prevent the advancement of the Opunak'e harbor. The New Plymouth party had estimated that the revenue of the pott would pay the charges on the loan. If that were the case the exemption of £2,000,000 of an area for Opunake, would not affect them at all. He reckoned that the sinking fund suggestion" was totally inadequate. He took it that when land was sold for cash the Board's proportion was to be handed over to the sinking fund commissioners. But if all the 0.T1.P. and L.I.P. was sold the Board's proportion of 25 per cent, would reach about £145,000, with which to liquidate £300,0001 If £300,000 were given to New Plymouth he ridiculed the idea that that would be sufficient. New Plymouth was not altogether antagonistic to Opunake, because it hoped that the latter would act as a feeder, and he pictured New Plymouth's dream of a fleet of coasting vessels (with headquarters at New Plymouth), and plying between Onehunga, Mokau, New Plymouth, Opunake and Patea. This would require repairing sheds,- ironworks, etc., which would .soon swallow up large l6ans. Continuing to refer to the actual amount of money required, Mr Moore said that Mr Napier, Bell's estimate of the works required was £145,000, and of that half had been done at a cost of £60,000. To show how the loan proposals were bolstered up he stated that Mr Connett reckoned £26,000 for a new dredge, while the engineer's estimate was £16,000. Mr Marchant had recommended an eastern mole to cost £20,000 and he had no doubt but that a large sum would be spent on that. If the Bill were lost and £150,000 raised there was absolutely no reason why a sinking fund should not be provided and the whole affair wiped right out. It would only - make the rate one-third more, and even then it would be exceedingly small. He thought that several good schemes for that purpose could be evolved. It was all "tommy-rot" to say that it could not be fixed up in that way. Turning to the voting power of the Board, Mr Moore pointed out that the representation at the present time was grossly unfair. The Hawera ward with its laree valuation had only one member. He thought that aspect should be readjusted. He did not know what action should be taken, but he presumed there was the necessary machinery, and with prpper representation he felt sure that the Board of itself would kill the Bill. Returning to the consideration of the Bill .the. speaker said it had always been a matter of wonder to him that Mr Maxwell, knowing the feeling of the ratepayers and the history of the whole question for the past sixteen years, should have allowed Mr King to take possession of

him. One would have thought that before binding himself Mr Maxwell would have called meetings and consulted the ratepayers, and not committed them to a long struggle to defeat the object of the Bill. (Applause.) At the last meeting of the Board a resolution was passed at the instigation of Mr Maxwell to the effect that the Bill would be withdrawn if altered in any vital point. Mr Moore sug-

gested that this was designed for the express purpose of defeating Opunake, for if their Bill were passed previous to the New Plymouth Bill the latter was to be withdrawn. He thought this was* a most unjustifiable action. (Hear, hear.) Moreover, he had no faith in this provision, for who would withdraw it? And, perhaps, the Legislature would insist on altering and passing a Bill. Could a private member withdraw it? Mr Moore then proceeded to show that the Opunake harbor could be self-supporting. Assuming, he said, that the protective works and wharves cost £50,000, and assuming that the ratepayers were willing to pay }d rate, he calculatedthat a district of the value of £2,000,000 would be necessary. But if the ratepayers would pay more there was no reason why the district should not| be reduced. The New Plymouth party reckoned they could do without a rate, and he thought Opunake could as safely say a similar thing. He worked it out in this way :— Cr. : Interest £2500, working expenses £1000, total £3500 per year. Dr:: 20,000 tons at 3s £3000, endowments and port charges £250, total £3250. The deficiency, could easily be met by a harbor improvement fund of 6d a ton, bringing in £500 per annum. On that estimate they would be entirely rate free, and he calculated there would be effected a saving of £5737 on the present charges for goods. For one instance if flour could be obtained at Opunake at the same price as in New Plymouth the district would; save £500 per annum, and general goods (would show a saving of 17s lOd per ton; or £2000 a year. It had been stated' that he was attempting to boom the town, but 'he asserted that he didn't care a d about the town; he wanted to boom the county. The, town was depressed, but could anyone say that was because the country was prosperous? The truth was that the country was not making the progress it should. Much more production could be carried on if the stuff could be got away at a decent price. He would like to put it very plainly to the ratepayers: firstly, Were they in favor of a safe port at. Opunake and, secondly, were they prepared to pay something for it? If they said no to both he reckoned they would never get free from New Plymouth. If they wanted one without the other they were inconsistent. Mr Moore said Mr Marx regretted that he could not be present owing to a previous engagement, and he had informed the Speaker that he was of opinion that those served by Patea and those to be served by Opunake should be excluded from the New Plymouth district. Referring to the scope of the Opunake Bill the speaker said that some people thought they should not go outside a certain district for fear of opposition, but he was satisfied, that Opunake could put forward such a good scheme that a very larsie area would he perfectly willing to join in owing to the projected large saving. In 1909 would come the last chance of a lifetime; the 30 years was ut>, and unless they were free of New Plymouth nothing could be done. (Applause.) He moved— That this meeting forms itself into a committee to oppose the New Plymouth Harbor Bill to increase the loan over the district; and to promote an Opunake Harbor Bill with a district having a valuation of £2,000,000, and with a view to the construction of protective works at Opunake. Mr R. Ching seconded 1 . , Mr Conaglen thought the- Opunake Harbor Bill of last session should be revived. He did not know what* had happened to it, but he thought it had been dropped because their, -member had thrown over the district. Mr Major, perhaps, could give a better explanation. The Chairman, m answer to Mr Conaglen, said he was a member of the Bill Committee, and he could not tell why the Bill had been dropped, but the promoters had done their best, and it would be re-introduced next session. Mr J. Guy said the area in that Bill was far too small. There was no prospect beyond just the taking over the property of the present company. He thought it was totally inadequate to meet what Opunake wanted. Mr Hughson (Rahotu) said he had brought jjp the question of a port at Opunake at Mr^ Maxwell's Rahotu meeting some time ago, but he had been defeated. He thought some action should be taken without delay. Storekeepers had to pay heavy freight, and of course that was charged on to the poods. Freight cost him 45s per ton from New Plymouth, while from Opunake it cost 235, or a saving of 22s per ton. He estimated that Rahotu and district took 20 tons a week, on which .they were losing regularly £1 to 23s per ton. He did not think they should oppose the New Plymouth Bill, but they should strive to get a larger exempted area. (Hear, hear.) For the making of the port Opunake had plenty of raw material, and the cost would-be very small in comparison with the present loss. He thought an effort should be made and the centres adjoining visited. They should rate themselves with not a id or "id rate but fd in the £, for they were losing more than that now, (Applause.) Mr S. Forsyth said he would agree with Mr Hughson that they should not oppose the New Plymouth , Bill. The responsibility for the loan with a graduated rite -was -less on their side of the "hill" than it had been before. He would likp to see- the scope of their present Bill (Opunake) extended, but he thought that £2,000,000 valuation was too great. Mr Hucrhes condemned thp New Plymouth Bill generally, and blamed Mr j Maxwell for not discovering on what t6rms £150,000 could be borrowed. The present proposed loan was only a forerunner of other's, arid should be blocked. He reckoned Patea and Opunake should join hands and take oyer the coast.

'Mr Conaglen asked if the ratepayers in -the Hnwera ward were against the present Bill. Mr Hughes said the recent election showed they were.

Mr Brennan asked Mr Hughes if h,e,with his property on the Manaia road, would be prepared to join in with Opunake. Mr Hughes said he would like to compare their scheme with Patea before he answered., N< Mr Brennan said Mr Hughes should know what the position was. If he didn't as a member of the Board how long would the people take^ — ten years? 1 Mr Hughes said he would prefer Opunake to New Plymouth.. Mr Forsyth moved as an amendment — J That the first part of the resolution (referring to the opposition of the New Plymouth Bill) be deleted. > Mr Hughson seconded. The' amendment was lost on the . voices. , . ' ' - Acting on a suggestion Mr Moore offered to compromise to. the eextentt t that if meetings of ratepayers, objected to his Scheme the committee, should : have power to reduce the £2,000,000 valuation area.. * ' k '"! < • Mr Brennan' pointed out thjit if the resolution were carried it would, simply show Parliament that the^r Ifreifc still divided, and 1 ' then th'd present. Bill would be' lost until they 'arranged what they were unanimous about.<;/%" : 7 ; --;. The motion -was ; subsequently ■ car-\ ried by 14 votes to 8. s ,/ " % ..; 7 -