OPUNAKE HARBOUR.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 December 1929, Page 12

OPUNAKE HARBOUR.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —In Tuesday’s issue is a letter

from Mr. Sheat, wherein, apart from certain criticism, he asks the chairman, Mr. T. P. Hughson, certain questions. Failing an answer from Mr. Hughson, he asks me to oblige by supplying the replies. As no definite time is allowed Mr. Hughson to reply I am assuming that he will ultimately do so, which he on particular questions only. can answer truly. However, I will deal with each, and do my best to truthfully reply. (1) Has the board at any of its meetings gone carefully into the question of a . possible increase in the cost of administration in the event of the port being completed?—The board, has not.

(2) If not,.why not? —Personally I am quite neutral in the matter of the loan. | I do not advocate it, but consider that ’ the ratepayers should determine what is to be done with the port. I have made enquiries privately from other harbour boards in New Zealand, and the replies received indicate that if a port is suitably equipped with facilities for handling the cargo offering the maintenance costs are not abnormal; in fact, about ten shillings per cent, of cost of wharf. Possibly the other board members thought that the loan would not be carried (I know I do), therefore there was no need to discuss a contingency which may never arise.

(3) If so, did they endorse Mr. Hughson's 1926 estimate, which gave the annual working costs at £2soo?—lt was never discussed, but your correspondent may recall what I wrote on Mr. Hughson’s former estimates. I will not repeat it, save to say that I am sure Mr. Hughson is now sadly disillusioned, and contents himself with Mr. Hardy’s figures, and very modest they are when compared to his earlier, tables. (4) If the working costs are to be £2500, and the gross revenue to be £2500, how is the interest on the £20,000 to be paid and the present rate reduced?—ln my opinion, assuming that £20,000 is procured, which it is not, however, assuming that it is, I would estimate the gross tonnage (and. assuming the w-ork is complete) at 5000 tons bringing in a gross revenue of roughly £1250. Allow 1/6 for working expenses, making £375, leaving a net revenue of £875. Let us take £75 for maintenance, leaving £BOO. As interest and sinking fund would cost £l4OO, there would be a debit of £6OO. This does not look like reducing any rate. However, there may be other sources of revenue which I have not thought of that could be exploited. (5) In view of the fact that there was an overdraft of £1685 in July last, how does the board expect to pay for the harbour-master’s house? Does it propose' to increase this deficiency?—l suppose Mr. Sheat recognises that a house has value, and although the bank overdraft may be used to build the office and resi-

deuce, computed at 7 per cent., the cost is cheaper than paying £1 per week rent for a main street frontage, and, further, should the board be solely a rate-collect-ing body and rented the house it would, with the adjacent reserve, make a good farmlet and command good interest on the outlay, and could show a profit. (6) Will the deficiency have to be paid out of future revenue of the port ?•—Oh, no. Some enthusiasts will leave a bequest sufficient to liquidate the whole loan and overdraft.

(7) If so, how is the trade going to yield a surplus for the reduction of the present rate immediately on completion of the scheme, seeing that the deficiency is enough’ to absorb the estimated surplus for four years?—The trade is not

going to reduce the present rate at 1 all in my view.*’

(8) Does Air. Hughson consider it fair to the ratepayers to spend their money employing a solicitor to do purely secretarial work?—l could not say what Air. Hughson originally thought, but I felt

and spoke very rudely about it; in fact, too rudely for my remarks to be published. I don’t think it will happen again. X

(9) Does Mr. Hughson consider it playing the game with the ratepayers to incur capital liability on buildings when the port is likely to be closed finally if the Loans Board rejects his scheme?— Mr. Hughson has as much right to assume that the Loans Board will sanction the poll of ratepayers as Mr. Sheat has to assume that the port will be scrapped. It is a point of view. Sometime when we are extremely reluctant to sanction certain expenditure it becomes imperative to do so. ’ In a previous letter I explained the circumstances. They should suffice. (10) Seeing that the board has definitely decided to survey the stone, why did the board shirk this question when it was first raised some months ago? —On this I cannot speak for the mind of other members. Personally I am only concerned in placing true, ungarnished facts before the ratepayers, so that without prejudice they may definitely decide for themselves. I have no personal feeling of animosity one way or the other. I asked that the stone be surveyed because there may not be enough to do the work,

and ratepayers may be misled again. It is an essential feature, and Mr. Sheat

knows it is so, and any small expense

so incurred is justifiable. (11) Is it a fact that the board, so far as its case for the Loans Board is concerned, has abandoned the pretence that the net revenue will be sufficient to permit of a reduction in the present rate?—Any evidence likely to be fen-

dered has not yet been determined by I the board. (12) Will he tell us definitely what works of urgent necessity are covered by the phrase “certain improvements to the wharf”, in the advertisement 'appearing in to-day’s Daily News ? —Mr. Hughson had better answer this, because I don’t know of any contemplated work. Possibly it is assuming that there was a surplus that the wharf may be widened or extended. It has not been definitely discussed. Probably it is a machinery clause necessary to make the spending of the loan more comprehensive. Anyhow, your correspondent will have ample opportunity to get details. Reference is made by your correspondent to spending £5O on machinery. This was to scale, paint and grease the plant which lay corroding in the salt spray. Talk is made of what this machinery could be sold for, but had it been left longer without attention it would have beeu of no more use than scrap iron. I may explain that the overdraft I is somewhat different from what appear-

ed in the August statement. -Through non-payment of rates some time since a sum of £7OO odd was paid out of the general account for interest and sinking fund due. As no authority exists for this payment it has been refunded to the general account. The capital expenditure on the house and any money spent in clearing the berthage, unless the . Government grant is forthcoming, must be paid from this source. As the board’s revenue is small extreme caution must be exercised in incurring any expense, because interest on overdraft alone could absorb what surplus revenue there

may be available. Ratepayers may not be aware that the harbour loans mature in 1932 to 1934, and, allowing for sinking fund reduction, will have to be renewed. In view of this fact I learn that there is small hope of disestablishing the board, and that the debenture-holders would not allow work constructed at great cost to be immediately destroyed, even though unproductive. As there is an extremely limited market for harbour machinery its realisation would not be of much value. In a jumble sale the lot may only realise the cost of the smallest hauler, so it looks that little hope can be entertained for a rate reduction from sale of plant. I seriously doubt whether when once constructed any board would have power to demolish the work done with a view to raising a few pence from the salvage. In fact, this gets back to my earlier contention, that if after spending on harbour works £55,000 raised over a district about the size of an Australian lambing paddock, then the only final alternative is to scrap the works, there should be a court-martial somewhere.

Undoubtedly the Government should hold an enquiry as to what is the best to do in these tragic circumstances. I feel that ultimately it may come. Meanwhile the Minister writes that the ratepayers should know what to do, so I presume that vote on it they will. Mention is made by your correspondent that the Board is impotent because it did not stand ready to issue its loan prospectus immediately the Act was passed. I do not know the chairman’s reason for not rushing. Mr. Sheat asked me a couple of times what had we done. I told him that it was not my business to push this particular loan. All that I would do was to see that it duly came before the ratepayers for a decision. I had no doubt that it would soon enough come forward, because these same critics care not one iota about the state of the staging, etc. They are simply out to kill

it, and I must trust that the joy will be none the less to them by the delay. They criticise the board for protecting its machinery; they would criticise it as culpably negligent if it didn’t. They criticise it for trying to keep the poor little port open. They would have called the board names if it did not; in fact, the board to them may be likened to Aesop’s fable, where the two animals vzent to the brook to driuk. —I am, etc., J. A. TOSLAND. Pihama, December 24, 1929.