PROGRESS LEAGUE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 12 March 1930, Page 2

PROGRESS LEAGUE

SOUTH ISLAND CONFERENCE OPENED IN MUNICIPAL BUILDING TO-DAY DISCUSSION’ OF REMITS The. sixth annual conference of the South Island Progress League was held in the City Council Chambers to-day. The following delegates were present : Southland: W. Hinchey. Otago: C. J. Errington, W. B. Steel. Canterbury: 11. Holland, M.P., PIt. Climie, C. 11. Clibbon. Buller: C. B. Betts, E. R. Fox. Marlborough: R. F. Coulter, W. J. Girling. South Marlborough: W. Scott, PL Snushall. Motueka: S. P. Clay. Nelson: A. Gould, W. J. Moffatt, J. Corder E. 11. Thomson, E. R. Neale, H. W. Kelly, F. I. .Ledger. Mr A. Gould, the president of the Nelson Progress League, was elected chairman of the Conference. Mr Gould thanked members for the honour conferred on him and on the Nelson League. It was decided that each League be entitled to one vote.

Before commencing the business of the meeting a vote of condolence was passed to the relatives of the late Mr T. Harle, who was a delegate at previous conferences.

SOUTH ISLAND FRUIT SUPPLY The following remit from Canterbury was moved by Mr H. Holland, M.P. : "This conference is of opinion that the interests of the Island fruit trade with the South Island as originally intended should be the paramount consideration in arranging the ports of .call of the Government motor ship Maui Pomare, and urges the Government to reconsider the vessel’s itinerary as now existing.” Mr Holland gave a detailed account

of the running of the Maui Pomare pointing out the disadvantage of southern towns. He said that the infrequent calls of the motorship at Samoa resulted in the waste of 50 per cent, of Samoan fruit. The large cost of running to ship to Auckland was criticised. His League wished to urge on the Government/, when the present contract was ended, to change the running of the ship so that the South Island would receive the benefit that they were entitled to. The fruit trade in Auckland was not relying on the Maui Pomare as the trade was established long before the purchase of the ship. Mr Steel (Otago) seconded the adoption of the remit. He described the present contract as “infamous,” and one by which Southern towns were taxed 5s to 7s a case when they bought fruit carried by the Maui Pomare. It was the original intention to run the ship to southern ports. Mr W. Hinchey (Southland) said that his League supported the remit strongly. Southland could not get the best fruit under the present arrangements —they only got what was left over. , A voice : “Auckland gets the Lest.” ' Mr Hinchey: “Yes.”

Mr W. J. Moffatt (Nelson) and Mr C. B. Betts also spoke in favour of the remit, which was carried unanimously. COASTAL SERVICES AND FREIGHTS Mr I’. Clibbon (Canterbury) moved the adoption of the following remit: “That in the opinion of this Conference the present high cost of coastal transport, especially the freights for South Island produce to northern ports, is a serious handicap to the proper development of trade between the two Islands, and urges that the Department of Industries and Commerce should undertake an early enquiry into the matter with a view to an amelioration of the existing conditions, or, on the early completion of the South Island Main Trunk Railway, the institution of a train-ferry service between the two Islands.” Before commencing on his subject Mr Clibbon said he wanted to emphasise a point mentioned by the Mayor of Nelson in liis welcome, that of politics. He said the Progress Leagues were nonpolitical, and the work being clone by the Leagues would receive a set back if politics crept in. 11l support of the remit Mr Clibbon quoted figures showing the cost of railage for produce between southern towns, also freights to Home markets. His League was of the opinion that they had a strong case in asking to have the points in the remit given effect to.

Mr C. J. Errington seconded the remit. He considered Otago was just as interested in the matter as Canterbury. The problem would in some way be helped by the completion of. the Main Trunk Railway. He thought the League should in some way compliment the Government on the work being done on the railways in the South Island. Both the North and South Island main trunks were necessary and he thought that the benefits from the completion of the South Island railways would soon be apparent and would have the efteet of getting sea freights reduced as the result of competition between the rail and boats. Messrs H. F. Goulter (Marlborough), W. J. Girling (Marlborough), S. P. Clay (Motueka), and W. J. Moffatt (Nelson) also spoke in support. Mr Girling ’gave an example of farmers in Marlborough being given £4 10s a ton in Blenheim for chaff and the retailing of the chaff at Auckland for £lO a ton, the large difference in price being mainly due to shipping freights. SOUTH ISLAND-AUSTRALIA STEAMSHIP SERVICE A remit from Canterbury read as follows: “That this conference is of opinion that the interests of the South Island demand the immediate performance of the contract between the Government and the Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., for the South Islandby‘the wreck of the s.s. Manuka.” 3lr Clibborn introduced the remit. As a main point in favour of the conference’s support of the remit Mr Clibborn mentioned the growing tourist traffic. He said tourists should he able to land in the South Island if they so desired. The successful tenderer for the service between the southern part of New Zealand and Australia should have known all the possibilities and obligations of the contract. The Canterbury League thought that a company should be able to fulfil the conditions of the contract and the Government should force the company to carry them out.

Mr Steel (Otago) said it was pleasing to find Canterbury with them in wliat he described as Otago’s “hardy annual.” Mr W. Hinchey (Southland) said that whenever a meeting was held in Southland by the Progress League and Chamber of Commerce this question was discussed. Southland was of the opinion that the Union Company did not want the service. The company had been merging with larger companies who did not want small runs like the Bluff to Melbourne and concentrated on the larger ones such as Wellington to Melbourne and Wellington to Sydney. Whether that was the case or not the absence of a service was no good to Southland as they had no direct outlet for produce and travellers to the south had to retrace their steps to Wellington before being able to get away to Australia. He remembered the time when practically all tourists either came to or left New Zealand by the southern boat. It was in the interests of the whole Island to fight for the restoration of the service and if the Union Company could not do it they should get someone else. He had suggested that local bodies in the soutli-as far up as Canterbury provide themselves with a boat hut the local bodies bad not been inclined to tax themselves for the purpose. He considered the matter an urgent one. The tourist traffic to New Zealand was growing and he was of the opinion that it would build up until it nearly equalled the goods traffic. The present arrangements deprived the south of tourists. Mr Holland supported the remit. At present there were a number of ships laid up which could be put on the run. He could not remember the matter being discussed in the House of Parliament. The Lyttelton Harbour Board was in favour of the remit, Mr W. J. Girling (Mai thorough) mentioned the case of the Empire Farmers’ party which was in Marlborough recently and were going on to Otago. They did not wish to return all the way to Auckland in order to go to Sydney. He was satisfied that if good passenger ships were put on the southern run people would either enter or leave New Zealand by the southern mite. Mr IT. W. Kelly (Nelson) said that it was only by united effort that the Government could he got to see that the contract was carried out. Messrs .T. Corder (Nelson), R. F. Coulter (Marlborough) and A. Gould (Nelson), also favoured the adoption of the remit. The remit was carried unanimously. (Proceeding)