REJECTED HARBOUR LOAN

Taranaki Daily News, 5 July 1930, Page 7

REJECTED HARBOUR LOAN

GPUNAkE BOARD’S PROTEST LOANS BOARD ASKED FOR REASON. —4 . ROYAL COMMISSION NOT WANTED. The action of the Local Bodies’ Loans Board in refusing to sanction the proposal of the Opunake Harbour Board to raise a loan of £20,009 to complete the mole and effect other improvements to • make the port of Opunake available for shipping at all times was the subject of considerable discussion at the meet- ; ing of the Opunake Harbour Board yesterday. A motion was carried disagreeing with the finding, and asking for the reasons leading up to the board’s, decision. A motion ,by Mr. J. S. Tosland asking that a Royal Commission be set up to investigate the whole matter of the Opunake harbour was defeated. ■- The chairman (Mr. T. P. Hughson) read the regulation, which was to the effect that after the Local Bodies’ Loans Board had refused sanction to a loan no further application in respect to the same loan would be considered until after the lapse of 12 months, unless there had been in the meantime a material change in the circumstances. At the last meeting, when the refusal of the • Loans Board to sanction the loan had been received, members had decided to ' defer consideration of further action till yesterday’s meeting, to give them time to consider the matter. He had received • a' letter from the board’s engineers, - Messrs. Vickerman and Lancaster, bear- • ihg on the question, and he would like the board to consider it in committee before deciding whether or not it should ’ be handed to the Press. . ; ■ Mr. Tosland was in favour of full publicity being given. The ratepayers had the right to know the opinion of • members. He favoured the whole prob- ‘ lem being referred to a Royal Commis- • eion.' ■ ' . •. . .'Mr. J. A. Pettigrew strongly objected ■ to publicity being given to the letter, . ' which was /written to Mr. Hughson in his private capacity, and not as chairman of the board. i The board then went into committee, ■ and on resuming it was reported that no resolutions had been passed.

LETTER TO LOANS BOARD. Mr. Pettigrew moved that a letter be prepared and forwarded to the Loans . Board, stating that the Harbour Board disagreed with the finding in connection with the loan, and would be pleased to have the reasons leading up to the decision. Mr. C. A. Trotter seconded. Mr. Tosland said he did not agree with the motion. The board should . ask the grounds on Which the loan had been turned down, and he moved an amendment accordingly. The Loans Board might have had good grounds for dealing with the matter as it had. The chairman said that was not an amendment. The board did riot agree with the action of the Loans Board in rejecting the loan. * Mr. Tosland said he could not say he disagreed until he knew on what grounds the loan had been rejected. The chairman said that the Harbour Board was not prepared to accept the decision. . ■ . Mr. Tosland considered the better plan would be to have a Royal Commission set up to inquire into the whole position of the harbour. He did not think there was a parallel case in the Dominion. It was even possible that the Loans Board had never dealt with such a case before. Mr. Trotter: The Manawatu railway deviation. Mr. Tosland said the deviation had ■ not been stopped by the Loans Board. Mr. Trotter, said it was the saine thing. He pointed out that even if nothing 'further was done some us could be made of the present structure. The chairman said he could not see that a commission would affect the position. The board was not satisfied with the decision of the Loans Board. Mr. Trotter said his information was to the effect that the loan had been turned down on account of commercial reasons, though, of course, there might . be other reasons also. The board had to approach the matter warily. • Mr. H. Young: Apparently the argument has been .used that because the railway is there the harbour is not ’ needed. • . Mr. Trotter: .If they are not quick ithey won’t have the. railway long, either. ■ Mr. Young said they did not need it. It was costing the Government a loss of £20,000 annually. “A DESPOTIC BODY.” Mr. Trotter remarked that when they were dealing with the Loans Board they were dealing with a despotic body against which there was no appeal. Mr. Tosland stated that if his amendment asking the reasons for the loan - being turned down were not accepted he ‘ would have to ..vote against the motion, as he did not think the board had any . right to object to the decision. . r The amendment, which was seconded by Mr. R. C. Watson, was lost, the mover and seconder voting for it, and ’ the motion was carried. Discussing the suggestion that a com- ' mission should be set up, the chairman favoured waiting until a reply was re- . ceived from the Loans Board. • . Mr. Tosland/said it was clear that if they were to receive any relief they 'must look outside the Loans Board, as that board’s word was apparently final, ' and according to the law the board could ’ not again be approched till 12 months ' had expired.'lt would save time to ask for a commission. .. The chairman pointed out that n - there were a change of. circumstances • the Loans Board could again be approached. That, provided a loop-hole, and he thought it was. not unlikely that the board would have reasons that would . cause the matter to be reconsidered. He did not think they should take the matter elsewhere without notifying the Loans Board. , Mr. Tosland had no. objection to the ' Loans Board being notified, though he did not think that body would object to a commission being set up if it bad • done its work fairly. He did not think any action could prejudice the board with the Loans Board, which had already given its decision. He moved that in view of the incompleted state of the harbour, whereby shipping could- not shelter to discharge in safety, and, fur- • ther, in view of the fact that the Loans Board had refused to sanction a further loan of £20,000 to complete the work, owing to the present.unsatisfactory state

of the port, the board ask the Government to set up a Royal Commission to investigate the whole matter of the harbour and to recommend to the ratepayers and the Government the best solution of the present position. This was seconded by Mr. Watson. The chairman said he agreed with the motion, provided the Loans Board was notified. Mr. Pettigrew opposed the motion. He said they had approached the Marine Department on a previous occasion in connection with the Arapawa incident and had been practically told to attend to their own business. If th® board could not shoulder the present situation he, for one, did not consider he should sit on the board. If the ratepayers did not like to pay the rate they would do the other thing. It was their own fault that they had to pay the rate,’ as a section of them had done all it could to hinder the board in carrying out its plans. Some day, perhaps, they would see the error of their ways and would ask the 'board to carry but the work, Personally, he had no confidence in the finding of a' commission, which would be composed of outside men not in touch with local conditions. If the position was impossible it was not of the board’s own making, but he thought the idea of a commission was out of the ques; tion. The board had to see the matter through, and no doubt as time went on they would see light. He did not think there was the slightest hope of the Government taking over any of the responsibility. '. ‘ Mr. Taylor agreed that a policy of self-help was best. If the Loans Board had given ratepayers an opportunity of voting on the question' and they had turned it down he would have had nothing to say, but the ratepayers had been given no choice. The chairman said the government would set up a commission m the personnel of which the board would not be considered. Mr. Tosland said it would be an unfortunate position if there were . not men in the country who could impartially give their decision after hearing evidence. The board would have the opportunity of stating its. case. . The chairman, said he had been told that if they had the railway to the port there would be more chance of having the loan put through, as it would then be'a distributing centre for the railway, but he did not agree with that proposal. Judging from the experierice of the railway charges between the breakwater and New Plymouth the rail charges from the wharf to Opunake would be more than the 3s. per ton at present charged. He held that the Public Works Department ment was up against the harbour because it was considered that the port would be a very serious competitor to the railway, which was not paying non. The chairman said that no consideration was given to the fact that through having to rail their goods from New Plymouth settlers in the Opunake district had to pay at least £1 per ton more than would be the case if the harbour were available. The motion asking for a commission to be. set. up was then put to the meeting arid defeated.