HARBOUR LOAN REJECTION

Taranaki Daily News, 2 August 1930, Page 12

HARBOUR LOAN REJECTION

PROBLEM OF FUTURE ACTION. OPUNAKE RESERVES' DECISION. Owing to the decision of the Local Government Loans Board not. to sanction the proposal to raise a loan of £20,000 the Opunake Harbour Board t is faced with the problem of deciding on its future policy. The matter was before the board at ite meeting yesterday, when a report was received from the finance .committee comprising the chairman (Mr. T, P. Hughson), Messrs. T. H. 11. Sinclair, J. A. Pettigrew a»d J- S. Tosland, recommending the board to consider what future course was to be adopted. The board dealt with the matter in committee and on resuming it was reported that a resolution had been carried defer-: ring consideration till the next meeting? All the members were present with the exception of Messrs. Tosland and R. C. Watson.

As the outcome of a discussion at the last meeting bf the board a letter was forwarded to tlie chairman of the Local ' Government Loans Board stating that the information bf the refusal to sanction the loan was received with the deepest regret, and while temporarily agreeinor with the decision the members of tlie board respectfully asked for further consideration, more c«z pecially upon the commercial aspe'et of the proposed improvements and their value to the district. The Harbour Board was of opinion that the commercial and financial aspects of the scheme had not been as fully represented to Mr. Keller, district engineer, as they could have been, and therefore the board felt that an unintentional injustice might have been done to the port, and they asked for further investigation on that side. Further, for their own information and guidance the board would, if such an application was in order, ask to be supplied with the reasons leading up to the refusal. At yesterday’s meeting a reply was received from the chairman of the Loans Board (Mr. A. D. Park) stating that careful consideration was given to the application and that all relevant factors were placed before the Loans Board. The board did not act only on the report of the district engineer of the Public Works Department but the proposal was thoroughly investigated from all aspects. Regarding the desire to have the application reconsidered he drew attention to the clause mentioned by the Prime Minister and added that the information contained in the board’s letter did not indicate that there was any change in the circumstances in this instance, and it was therefore regretted that the Loans Board , would be unable to entertain a further application. The Loans Board, he concluded, was not required to wive' reasons for its decisions, and he was unable to supply the board with the reasons leading up to the refusal to sanction its application. A letter was also read from the Prune Minister (the Hon. G. W. Forbes), addressed to the chairman of the board, statino- that he had conferred with the chairman of the Loans Board in connection with the board’s application for sanction to borrow. He was advised.that when considering the application the Loans Board was fully aware of the circumstances connected with the present proposal and with the present position of the harbour works, but was nevertheless unable to sanction the raising of further loan moneys. ' k The chairman of the Loans Board informed him that if there had been a material change in the circumstances since the loan proposal was first submitted an application for reconsiderar tion might be reconsidered. That was in accordance with section 7 of the Local Government Loans Board Act, which provided that in the event of the board declining to sanction the application of a local body to borrow moneys no further application should be made to the board in respect of the same proposals within a period of j twelve months unless there had been • a material change of circumstances af-1 fecting the loan proposals. The Prime ; Minister was informed, however, that no evidence had been submitted to indicate that there had been any change in the circumstances. He also took the opportunity of advising that -the Loans Board was a statutory body, the functions and duties of which had been defined by the Legislature and that ho Had ho jurisdiction over the acts and deliberations of the board. ■ In regard to the suggestion that the Government take over the liability for loans already raised, it was impossible for the Government to move in that direction.