PORI OF GREYMOUTH

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21774, 13 October 1932, Page 9

PORI OF GREYMOUTH

GOVERNMENT’S' ANNUAL SUBSIDY , STRONG PLEA FOR RETENTION. (From Oor Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, October' 12. Declaring that the withdrawal of the annual subsidy of £12,000 would cripple the port of Greymouth, a deputation from the Greymouth Harbour Board, which waited on the Prime Minister (Mr G. W. Forbes) and the Minister of Marine (Mr J, G. Gobbe) this afternoon, made a strong protest against this recommendation of the National Expenditure Commission. > Mr Forbes promised that the Government would obtain a full report before making a decision. The deputation was introduced by Mr J. O’Brien, who said that to give effect to the commission’s recommendation would be considered by the people ,of Westland a definite breach of faith.. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr H. f, E. Holland) claimed tiiat pn^the maintenance of Greynioutli harbour depended a great deal of the prosperity of Westland and the southern Buller district as well as a good portion of Motueka. Mr J. M‘Lean, chairman of the Greymouth Harbour Board, said that when the board was constituted in 1884 it had been given as an •endowment the GreyBrminer railway and wharf. In 1921 the board handed oyer its interest in the railway to the Government for a payment of £15,00Q annually. This amount was reduced to £12,000 in 1931, and now it was proposed to suspend payment of even this reduced sum. The board had, in addition, paid for plant valued at £49,120, and.had handed over everything to the Railways .Department, In the report of the National Expenditure Commission, Mr M'Lean continued, it was stated that the board, had under construction a programme of capital wprka which it was suggested should be suspended. The entire scheme of construction work at present being carried out by the : board consisted of the restoration of the existing breakw.atersi .and the only item of capital expenditure incurred was for the purchase of the new plant necessary for this work. The present condition of the harbour entrance was bafely J adequate to meet the requirements of the'shipping using the port, and if the existing facilities were , to be maintained it'was imperative that the present work of--restoration should be continued. Mr M‘Lean said that the trade of the port had been declining on account of the depression 1 and other causes. The result had been a fall in the revenue of almost £16,000 in .the two years ended March, 1931, and a further drop of £3900 was estimated for the current year, making a total of £19,900. Adding'the ’ proposed cut of £12,000 there was a total decline of £31,900 in three years, representing considerably more than one-half of the board’s revenue. The withdrawal of the subsidy would cripple the hoard’s activities unless a harbour rate was struck sufficient to recoup the loss. This would mean a rate of 9Jd in the pound over the. whole harbour rating area. If the Government decided to adopt the commission’s recommendation the board’s finances would he crippled to such an extent that it might not be able to main- / < tain the port. . . ' Mr Forbes, in reply, said he would consider the representations and have a report prepared. He would then advise the board of the Government’s decision. ,