THE MANUKAU HARBOUR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13648, 16 January 1908, Page 3

THE MANUKAU HARBOUR.

QUESTION OF CONTROL. MEETING AT ONEHUNGA. RIVAL CANAL SCHEMES, Last evening a special meeting of the Onehunga Chamber of Commerce waa held for the purpose of conferring with Mr. F. W. Lang, M.P., on the question of the control-of Manukau Harbour. Mr. John Eowe (president of the Chamber and Mayor of the borough) presided, and 12 others were, present. In introducing the subject, Mr. Rowe said the matter of the control of the Manukau Harbour was a burning question, and Auckland people seemed anxious to assume the responsibility. He took exception to statements made at a recent meeting of the Auckland Harbour Board that the people of Onehunga were pursuing a dog-in-the-manger policy, and that they did not want the control themselves and did not want anyone else to have it. STATEMENT BY MR. LANG. Mr. Lang, M.P.,'spoke of the support he had received from the press in his endeavours to secure reform at Onehunga Wharf. A Minister had stated that when the Main Trunk line was through there would probably bo very little • use for Onehunga Wharf; but afterwards the same Minister had put £1000 on the Estimates for the wharf. Before he (Mr. Lang) went to the House last session he was asked about forming a local harbour board, and he suggested that the Minister for Marine should be asked on what terms the Government would be willing to hand over the harbour to a local board. He had hoped to receive an answer definite enough to call a public meeting of the people to decide. Nothing definite was received in reply. Then he was furnished with the draft Bill which set out the wishes of Onehunga; but, so far, no definite reply had been received from the Minister for Marine, through whom the business had to be transacted. Mr. Lang totally disagreed with the idea that the Main Trunk would take away the Onehunsra trade. It would take passengers for Wellington, but very few or none of those for New Plymouth, Kawhia, Waitara, etc., and practically none of the goods traffic, while it could not affect the growing traffic to the Kaipara and other northern ports. The late Mr. M. Kirkbride had tried, time after time, to get returns showing the trade of the port, but without avail. He (Mr. Lang) was told by the Prime Minister that the Department , could not furnish a return of receipts and expenditure of the Onehunga Wharf. _ This seemed a most extraordinary thing. However, certain returns were furnished, showing that the harbour, apart from the wharf, for the year ended March 31, 1906, had received in port charges £211 10s 6d, while the expenditure totalled £900 13s Bd, and for : the following year the receipts were £245 1 14s and the expenditure £749 4s 9d. This return was furnished by the Marine : Department. He then approached the Railway Department regarding the wharf, and got a return in the dying hours of the session showing that for the two years ended March, 1907, the revenue was £3787 14s 4d, and expenditure £5376 lis 7d. No details whatever were given, and therefore the return was of no value. Most people he had mot were. very much surprised to learn that there had been £5000 expenditure. _ It seemed to him there were three questions to decidewhether the people would let things go on as they were, whether they would have a local harbour board, or whether they would have the Auckland Harbour Board as the controlling body. He took exception, to the remarks at the recent meeting of the Auckland Harbour ; Board, and said Onehunga people were : quite as well able to manage the harbour ■ as the members of the Auckland Board. ; One member had said the mismanagement of the Manukau Harbour was a scandal. It seemed an extraordinary thing for the Auckland Board to pass a resolution asking to be allowed to take over the Manukau Harbour' without first consulting the people concerned. The draft Bill mentioned a subsidy of £1000 a year; but the Minister for Marine said the subsidies paid to harbour boards had not been granted in his time, and he would grant none whatever, as, if a community .could not start and maintain a board itself, then the Government would run the harbour. V THE DISCUSSION. THE DISCUSSION. Mr. Rowe remarked' that the railway siding at the wharf had been put in during the last two years, and that probably accounted for the bulk of the £5000. He knew of no other important expenditure. Mr. J. E. Taylor referred) to the details given of the trade of New Plymouth port, and asked why the Government could net give the same sort of return in connection with Onehunga. Ho was confident there was quite sufficient revenue to carry on a harbour -board at Onehunga. He had been inJavour of the Auckland Board taking control, but after it committed itself to the Whan Canal project, without ascertaining the claims of tho Tamaki scheme, and allowed its engineer to become consulting engineer to the Whau Canal prompters, he lost faith in th v e disinterestedness of the Board. It had actually been stated before the Board that there was a bed of rock running right up where the canal would require to go, whreas it was well known there was no rock. The Tamaki Canal would Be far shorter and cost much less than the Whau Canal, and it had infinite advantages over the Whau project.* Mr. Rowe explained, with regard to the subsidy, that the Government was asked to give a subsidy of £1000 a year, instead of handing over the Railway Wharf. 'It was considered that the wharf was worth more than.that to the Government. The total revenue from the endowments was only £150 a year at present, and without either a subsidy or the control of the wharves it would not be possible to have a harbour board. The chairman of tho New Plymouth Harbour Board had. said he was as much interested in Manukau Harbour as in New Plymouth, because the prosperity of the one meant the prosperity of the other. At Is a head, the revenue from the passenger traffic would •be large, and then for the year 160,000 tons of cargo sent out at Is 6d per ton would mean good revenue. He referred to the large and rapidly increasing trade of the Manukau to and from New Plymouth; Waiuku, the Huia, Kawhia, Waitara, Raglan, etc. If the Auckland Board was elective, he might be in favour' of handing over th© control, but not with the Board as at present constituted. Mr. A. S. Holmes spoke of the advantages of a local board, and thought the Auckland Board was too much interested in the Whau Canal idea.. He believed the whole of the local bodies round the Manukau desired local control.

DECISION OF THE MEETING. Mr. J. E. Taylor then moved: That the Government be requested to bring in a Bill next session for the creation of the Manukau Harbour Board, which shall have control of all shipping, wharves, and foreshores, the harbour, its endowment- I }, and all revenues accruing from these various sources. This was seconded by Mr. C. MeLeod and earned unanimously. Mr. A. S. Holmes moved: That in the opinion of this meeting it is advisable that a public meeting should be called to consider the question of harbour control, and that the Harbour Committee be asked to convene it, and representatives of all local bodies interested be invited. This was also carried. At the suggestion of Mr. M. H. Wynyard it was agreed to acquaint the Auckland Harbour Board with the views of the Chamber, and also to write members of the Auckland Board to inspect the route of the proposed Tamaki Canal. On Mr. Taylor's motion the meeting resolved to request the Government to supply the information which Mr. Lang had so long pressed for regarding the Manukau Harbour and the Hallway Wharf. A vote of thanks to Mr. Lang concluded the- meeting.