MONEY FOR NEW WHARF

Taranaki Daily News, 19 July 1929, Page 11

MONEY FOR NEW WHARF

MOVE TO EARMARK £300,000 MR. W. C. CLEMENTS’ MOTION LOST. DISCUSSION BY HARBOUR BOARD. After expressing the opinion, broadly, that it was unnecessary to carry such a proposal into effect, members of the New Plymouth Harbour Board voted against the following proposal, submitted yesterday by Mr. W. C. Clement in accordance with notice: — “That that portion of the £600,000 loan sanctioned by the ratepayers of the New Plymouth harbour district and still unexpended, amounting to £300,000, be set aside or car-marked for the purpose for which it was authorised — the building of the new Moturoa wharf in ferro-concrete.”

The only support came from Mr. Clement and his seconder, Mr. J. H. H. Holm.

Mr. Clement said the board had practically unanimously decided some time ago that the time was not opportune to go ahead with the work. His object in bringing the motion forward was to have some record that the money was there for the wharf. As far as he knew £200,000 of the loan had been raised and there was £400,000 to raise. Allowing for dredging requirements, there should be about £300,000 left, and the board should know what it was going to do with it.

Mr. Holm said the motion was carried by the board and then rescinded. . _AI- - it' had been decided not < to~'go on with the wharf for the present, the time would come when the board would have to go on with it, and the money should be ear-marked for that purpose. If this was not done it might be found that, when the board wanted it-, there was no money at all. The chairman (Mr. C. E. Bellringer) said that some time ago the board had decided to call tenders for the new Moturoa wharf. That resolution was rescinded because it was felt the time was not opportune to s tar t-. the work. Mr. E. Maxwell said this was practically the same as a motion carried a considerable time ago. Mr. Clements: In 1926, I think. Mr. Maxwell said it was rescinded a little while ago to give the board liberty to deal with the whole question of finance. “NOT A SINGLE REASON.” The chairman considered Mr. Clement had not given a single reason why his proposal should be adopted. The board wag raising £50,000 now and there would be £350,000 still available after that. ‘ “I am as keen as anyone to see that expenditure is kept as low as possible,” continued Mr. Bellringer. “As. far as I can see, the only expense will be for dredging, but I cannot see the value of binding ourselves now. If the board found'itself in any real difficulty needing expenditure in the future, it would have to rescind this motion were it to carry it to-day.” If*a member believed there was undue expenditure by the board it was open to him at any time to protest, he said. Personally he hoped the board would have not £300,000, but £350,000 for the wharf when the time came. He did not believe the board was likely to indulge in any reckless expenditure with the idea of spending £350,000, because the members were all keen on having the wharf when possible. The position was that trade had not increased sufficiently to keep abreast of the expenditure and warrant the boat'd in going on with the wharf. . Apparently Mr. Clement was afraid that the board as a whole was going to spend this money and find itself without the means to build the wharf, but the past history of the board did not warrant that assumption. Mr. Bellringer said he had always been against any move that would mean the imposition of a rate, and he did not think the board would be justified in going on with the wharf until trade warranted it. He saw no way in which the board would benefit if the motion were carried, nor did he know of any foreseen expenditure that would cut into the £350,000. The prime object wag the improvement of the port. CONTINGENCIES POSSIBLE. Mr. J. R. Gruickshank appreciated the sincerity of Mr. Clement in wishing to make sure that sufficient money would be available at the opportune time. His feeling in that direction was shared by the other members, but it was very difficult to foresee what demands might be made on the board in, say, twelve months for contingent expenditure. Furthermore, it did not necessarily follow that the board would proceed with the original plans for the wharf. In his opinion considerable modifications would b? necessary, and probably a very much c 1 aper structure would meet the needs of the port. If the motion were passed and the board were faced later by an unforeseen demand on its funds, it could only do one thing—rescind the resolution.

Mr. Maxwell said he was sorry he had io oppose the motion because he entirely agreed with Mr'. Clements’ idea.' He aimed at keeping as much of the loan money as possible for future fharf accommodation, Therefore, to vote against the • .otion seemed like ‘voting against a thing one was in favour of. He thought it would be futile to pass the motion, however. The board was given a very wide latitude in spending ami it was recognised it was injudicious to tie a harbour board down, because of unforeseen needs that might arise; . The board had very wide powers for the improvement of the harbour, but if this were passed it would be absolutely restricted to the erection of a concrete wharf. They had a very good wharf there now, and were not using it to capacity. He was satisfied that further dredging was necessary so thatlarge steamers could come in and go out at any stage of the tide. Deep water was one of the best things they could have to increase the cargo-handling capacity of the Newton King wharf. He was satisfied the board would have to get further equipment for the wharf. It was waiting now to sec whether the crane was thoroughly serviceable. He thought the -board would be warranted in increasing the facilities by acquiring a larger crane, or two crane's, SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED. The board should not restrict itself as suggested, continued Mr. Maxwell. He agreed with Mr. Clements that the board should not fritter its money away, and

he pointed out that at the last meeting of the board the general opinion was that they should economise in every way possible, including the cutting down of the staff. He was satisfied the board would not fritter money away, but it was essential to keep the powers wide owing tb the fact that circumstances might arise necessitating a change in the preconceived ideas of the board. Mr. D. J. Malone opposed the motion and pointed out that if the board found it necessary to spend a certain part of the loan money on certain work that money was being spent to the best advantage. The Act gave the board very wide powers in the spending of money for the improvement of the harbour, and if the motion were adopted it would make the position very awkward. Then, too, it -would be somewhat in the •nature of a vote of no-confidence in themselves. Members were quite capable of saying when and how the money should be° spent on works absolutely necessary for the good of the port. “Mr. Clement has maintained this money was borrowed for a special purpose, but I question that,” proceeded Mr. Malone. Ho thought it was for the general improvement of the port to pay for what might be found to be necessary and for emergency work. If something in the nature of a disaster had overtaken them during the recent storm and thousands of pounds worth of damage had been caused to the breakwater, he took it that the board would have used this money, motion or no motion. It would be unwise to carry the motion as members of the board could be trusted. Even if they did carry it, such a resolution could be rescinded at any future meeting. Mr. C. 11. Burgess said he appreciated Mr. Clements’ sincerity of purpose, but agreed with the others that the motion was unnecessary. He was not afraid that the board would fritter money away. He endorsed Mr. Maxwell’s remark that the board must go on with the dredging. It was no use building a wharf unless they had the water. They had already changed the policy of the board several times and might have to do it again. Mr. H. C. Taylor said that if passed the resolution would not carry a great deal of weight because, if the necessity arose, it would simply be rescinded. “When you went to the ratepayers with the loan proposal you had a propaganda map showing this new wharf with three ocean-going steamers alongside,” said Mr. Clement in reply. “I am satisfied that the ratepayers voted for the new wharf.”