THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1933. THE HARBOUR BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22022, 3 August 1933, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1933. THE HARBOUR BOARD.

The members of the Otago Harbour Board found themselves in a quandary at their meeting yesterday. They were reassured at the outset by the receipt of an intimation from the Commissioner of Unemployment that the payment of a subsidy upon the expenditure at the mole was not contingent upon the Board undertaking other work upon which also a subsidy would be paid. Thereupon the Board proceeded blithely to rescind so much of a resolution of a previous meeting that committed it to the renewal of 500 feet of the Birch street wharf. But when it was proposed as a substantive motion to leave this renewal work in abeyance—a motion that might have been supposed to be superfluous —a majority voted against it, thereby nullifying in effect the previous decision. The members who constituted the majority on this motion were apparently, however, not prepared to stultify themselves to the extent of agreeing that, subject to the receipt of a subsidy from the Unemployment Board, the renewal of Birch street wharf should be begun, and eventually it was decided that the consideration of this proposal should stand over for six months. This latter decision rescued the Harbour Board from a somewhat awkward predicament. The whole question of the policy which it should pursue is, as Mr Waters pointed out, governed by the state of its finances. And its finances are not elastic. It is agreed that the reconstruction of the mole at the Heads is the most essential work in its programme. The cost of this work is, however, uncertain. If to it were added the cost of the renewal of a portion of the Birch street wharf, such a large hole would be made in the funds at the command of the Board as might leave it without the present means to effect a connection between the Victoria wharf and the railway system. Moreover, the expenditure on .the Birch street wharf not only might conceivably but would certainly be used hereafter as an argument in favour of incurring further expenditure, such as upon the provision of shed accommodation, with the view of making it the wharf at which overseas vessels should be berthed. And that would virtually involve a reversal of the policy which the Board has accepted in the past. The arguments that were employed in support of the view that the Board should proceed with the reconditioning of the Birch street wharf were, first, that the condition of the wharf rendered the work necessary and, second, that it would be a mistake to neglect the opportunity of securing a subsidy on the labour cost of the work. The first argument was, however, deprived of its validity by the statement by the engineer that a modest annual expenditure upon repairs will make the wharf serviceable for some years to come, and the fact that the subsidy would be a quite inconsiderable proportion of the expenditure rendered the second argument less than weighty. Behind the whole case for the immediate reconditioning of the Birch street wharf lay, moreover, the possibility which we have mentioned that the adoption of it might serve as a lever in an attempt to effect such a change in the Board’s policy as would entail the sacrifice of much of the expenditure that has been incurred in the past in equipping the Victoria wharf for the accommodation of overseas shipping. It is satisfactory that the Board hesitated to take a step which might have been fraught with such serious consequences.