THE HARBOUR BRIDGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20969, 4 September 1931, Page 10

THE HARBOUR BRIDGE.

PROGRESS WITH BILL. NINETEEN CLAUSES PASSED. FURTHER CONSIDERATION LATER. [BY TELEGRAPH. —SPECIAL REPORTER. J WELLINGTON, Thursday. The Auckland Harbour Bridge Empowering Bill passed the second reading in the House of Representatives this evening and good progress was made. It was fully expected that the bill would be given the greater part of the sitting, but members were unexpectedly talkative on some of the half dozen local bills which preceded it on the Order Paper and there were only 40 minutes left when the bill was called. The Hon. A. J. Stallworthy, who was in charge of the bill, was purposely brief in moving the second reading, and few of those who spoke did so at any great length. Nevertheless, it was not possible to put tho measure through all stages as had been confidently expected, and only 19 of the 109 clauses had been passed in Committee when the House rose. Local Bodies in Agreement. Mr. Stallworthy, in moving the second reading of the bill, said the Auckland local bodies had reached absolute unanimity and the requirements of the Government Departments had been met in every particular. Mr. W. L. Martin (Labour— Raglan) said he was not hostile to the bill, but it required some further consideration. For one thing, there was to be no competition in connection with the cost of erection. His main objection, however, was in connection with clause 105, which gave the City Council or the Northcote Borough Council, after the expiration of 10 years, the right to purchase the bridg§. He reminded the House of the right given the Auckland Tramway Company to instal the tramway system, and said that the Act provided that at the expiration of a certain time, the undertaking was to be handed over to the City Council free of all charges, it being estimated that the company would reimburse itself over the period. He alleged that ratepayers had been asked' to sanction the purchase of the system, and a very large amount of money was paid to the company. The clause should certainly be deleted. Mr. Clinkard's Support.

Mr. C. H. Clinkard (Government — Rotorua) supported the bill and said there was no comparison between the trams and tlje bridge. He mentioned, however, that a similar arrangement was made in connection with the Horahora hydro-electric plant, and when taken over, had proved a very valuable investment. He hoped as the bridge would provide a considerable amount of employment that it would be-allowed to proceed is soon as possible. Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour —Auckland West) said he had no knowledge of the tramway agreement such as was stated by Mr. Martin. He expressed the hope that as far as possible New Zealand materials and labour would be used in the bridge. Mr. Stallworthy: That guarantee has already been given, and in writing. Mr. Savage: I am very pleased to hear that, as it is very desirable. Mr. A. Harris (Reform —Waitemata) also spoke of the employment the bridge would provide, and he urged that no time be lost in making a start. The bridge proposal had the support of all local bodies from Auckland City as far North as Whangarei, and the bill was merely following out the recommendations of the commission. As soon as construction began, it would be possible to employ 200 men, and in six months there would be over 1000 on the job. Withdrawal of Objections.

When the House went into committee at 10.22 p.m., there were only eight minutes left of the sitting. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Labour —Manukau), on behalf of Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour — Auckland Central), who had left for Hikurangi, said objections to "certain clauses had been received from some local bodies, but these objections had now been withdrawn and there was now no known objection to the measure. Progress on the bill was reported at 10.30 p.m., when the House ro6e, and leave was asked to sit again, clause 20 having then been reached. While the bill was in Committee further amendments were circulated. One of these, an additional sub-clause to clause 20, provides that costs, charges and expenses incurred by the Harbour Board, City Council or Northcote Borough Council relative to the necessary investigations or obtaining information before giving approval shall be paid by the company. An addition to clause 101 provides that transfer of the bridge or other action taken shall not release the guarantees which the company is to find for the necessary finance. THE CITY'S INTERESTS. COMPLETE PROTECTION. BILL FULLY REVIEWED. Assurances that the City Council's interests regarding the amended Harbour Bridge Bill had been fully protected were given to the council last evening by the Mayor, Mr. G. W. Hutchison. The Mayor said that a fortnight ago he had conferred with the Hon. A. J. Stallworthy, the Minister in charge of the bill, and as a result all the council's stipulations had been provided for to the satisfaction of the city solicitor. He had then notified Mr. Stallworthy in writing that the council had no objection to the bill as amended. Since then, "however, a Select Committee of Parliament had reviewed the measure and made a considerable number of further amendments. These had been examined by the council's committee and by the Harbour Board that day, and as the bill was due for consideration again by the House of Representatives that evening the fresh amendments desired by both bodies had been telegraphed to Mr. Stallworthy. In reply to Mr. H. P. Burton, the Mayor said that although supervision by the Minister of Public Works over the construction of the bridge had been replaced by supervision by the local bodies concerned, the provisions of the Harbours Act would apply. Supervision by the local bodies was optional. The council would appoint the Public Works Department to act on its behalf, and in any case the supervision costs would have to be borne by the bridge company.