OPUNAKE HARBOUR.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1930, Page 10

OPUNAKE HARBOUR.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—What a sorry plight the Opunake harbour advocates must be reduced to if “Egmont’s” letter is all they are capable of. Does not “Egmont” realise that if the board itself had any kick left in it, it would not have been necessary for him to refute my alleged errors, as I would have already been obliterated by the relentless logic of Mr. T. P. Hughson and his colleagues. In other words, “Egmont’s” letter is. an admission of the board's bankruptcy of ideas, as much as it is a proof of ‘Egmont’s” own profound ignorance of harbour matters. May I assure your correspondent that any opinions or suggestions I have put forward are not my own exclusively, but are what I believe represents the considered opinion of a majority of ratepayers. Having taken an active part in the preparation and circulation of the petition on which the loan was vetoed, I have had ample opportunity of ascertaining the views of ratepayers in all parts of the district, whereas “Egmont” apparently accepts as represexitative expressions of opinion the views of those who are enthusiasts for. the harbour because they have enjoyed, or hope to enjoy, substantial pickings out of the expenditure of the loan money. The main object, of “Egmont’s” letter seems to be to belittle my appeal for a policy of economy in order to cover up the scandalous wastefulness of the board’s policy during past years. “Egmont" asks what remuneration I would give a halftime secretary. This is a matter for the board, and not me, to, decide. Seeing, however, that up to 18 months ago the work was done by a part-time secretary for £lOO per annum'at a time when the work was more than it will be when the port is finally- closed, it should be possible to get the work done for ..something dess than onethird of what it, is costing to?day. , The prospects of reducing the board’s indebtedness by sale of plant and material I admit are not great, although the latest ■ figures show among, the board’s assets ‘’plant and machinery £6520” and “ooats, etc., £ll6 5 but, however small the amount realised on these items and- also on material from dismantled wharf and staging or sheds sold for removal, it would be something saved from the wreck, and even £lOOO saved and paid off liabilities :would be better than £20,000 spent or thrown into the sea. “Egmont" pooh-poohs the suggestion that a reduction of the rate would be possible if all unnecessary expense was eliminated. The sum of £3850 has to be found for interest, he tells us, but as the board levies £4286 in rates and has an income from reserves of £240 it is hard to believe there is no room for rate reduction if expenses are reduced to a minimum.

My assertion that’the general account? was in debit to the extent of £lO9O was not made, as “Egmont” asserts, “to alarm the ratepayers,” but tq,bring home to them the facts of the board’s position. Nor was my assertion a figment of my own imagination. The fact was ascertained from the board’s own balance-sheet, duly audited by the Government auditor and certified as correctly showing the financial position of the board. “Egmont’s” attempt to cloud the issue by suggesting that I kept back other facts won’t stand the test of examination. If “£750 had been transferred from general to interest account” this was only done because £6OO of rates had, Ireen written off owing mainly to the dilatoriness of the board or its officers in not collecting them. As for the fact that “the board ever since the striking, of a rate has not made a charge on the rate fund for collection of same, but has met expenses out of the general account," this admirable restraint on the board’s part was due to no other fact than that these expenses could not.be charged to the rate fund simply because there was no surplus in that fund to meet them; When it is all summed up my previous assertion stands, namely, that in spite of the heavy rates levied the board is drifting deeper into debt each year and damaging the credit of the board at a time when it will shortly have to borrow £55,000 to renew its loans.

Of all “Egmont’s” absurd statements the most absurd is his reference to the petition. Although this was signed by nearly 50 per cent.-of the ratepayers, representing £600,000 out of £1,000,000 of rateable values in the district (and many more would have signed had anything like a complete canvass of the district been possible) “Egmont” claims that is “no criterion” as many signed under duress and at a poll would gladly have voted for a repetition of the £55,000 orgy of squandering.’ Does “Egmont” imagine he can get away with such arrant nonsense? To what dire straits are the harbour advocates reduced in order to discredit a petition they found it impossible to refute by sound argument!

I do not propose at this stage to enter into a controversy with “Egmont” on statistics for other ports. Months ago I published case after case, which all told heavily against Opunake's prospects. • '‘Egmont’' now takes the case of Foxton, crediting me with asserting that “Foxton’s imports amounted to 2000 or 3000 tons.” This .is entirely wrong. The figures I quoted, those for 1927, were 6940 tons. It is true that for the year ending September 30, 1929, the figure was 3926 tons, but this was not then available. “Egmont” assures us that “the imports have jumped, to 17,000 tons a year” but, as the year’s total to last September was only 3926 tons, it would be interesting to know what precise period is covered by the 17,000 tons. Also, if Foxton’s trade is increasing by leaps and bounds it seems strange that (1) Foxton has recently levied a rate —the first for some years, and (2) the harbour board is at present fighting against a proposal to close the Foxton line, which should also be showing a rapidly growing trade if the port is prospering as claimed. “Egmont’s” far-fetched concluson that Foxton’s alleged 17,000 tons proves that Opunake's estimated 10,000 tons would eventuate seems wide of the mark, seeing that Foxton serves a district quite ten times as large as our own. To come nearer home, let “Egmont" consider Wanganui. Seeing thrZ Mr. Hughson is fond of quoting Wan-, gaiiui as an argument for Opunake’s sue-, cess, perhaps he will explain why Wanganui after several rate-free years is this year levying a rate totalling £16,500. Since “Egmont” wrote a further demonstration of futility has been. given by the board at Friday’s meeting. From this we learn:— (1) That the board notified the Loans Board that though the refusal to sanction the loan was viewed with the deepest regret. the board members “temporarily agreed” (whatever that may mean) with the decision. . ” '

(2) The board’s request that the .Loans Board give its reasons for its decision met with short shrift. (3) The board appears to have already suggested to the. Government that it take over the liability for loans already raised. It is time board members come out. into the open and explained themselves. Will Mr. Hughson through your columns answer the following questions: (1) What does the board mean by saying it “temporarily agrees” with the Loans Board's decision? (2) If it is . possible, for the board to “temporarily agree” on what grounds can it fail to permanently agree? (3) How does Mr. Hughson reconcile the statement that the board “temporarily agreed” with the decision with the fact that at the two previous meetings the decision was roundly condemned? (4) How does Mr. Hughson . reconcile these two statements: —(a) His own statement at the June meeting that the Loans Board’s investigation into the scheme had been very thorough, and (b) the statement in the letter to the Loans Board that “The Harbour Board was of opinion that the commercl-l and financial aspects had not been as fully represented to Mr. Keller as they could have been” ? (5) Seeing, that the objectors dealt fully with these aspects why did the board fail in such an obvious duty as that of fully stating their own case? (6) What fresh evidence in favour of the scheme does the board claim to have which would justify re-opening the case before the Loans Board? (7) Seeing that Mr. Hughson firmly believes that the £55,000 already spent - has been well spent and that the prospects of the port are so bright that with the spending of another £20,000 the harbour would become a paying proposition and yield a fair return on its whole cost of £75,000, would it not be wise to explore the possibility of .floating a company, with a capital of £75,000 to pay off the debt, take over the £55,000 harbour, complete it, and run it as a private undertaking? (8) In the event of such a company being floated how much of his own money is Mr. Hughson prepared to. put into it? —I am, etc., W. A. SHEAT. Pihama, August 4, 1930. P.S. —Since the above was written the letter of the board’s second anonymous defender has come to my notice. As the letter is a gross personal attack it requires no answer. Any criticism I have levelled against the harbour board, or any other public body, has been fair, square, and above board. Your correspondent’s’ letter is none of these things. Hie only virtue is the sense of shame which induced him to remain anonymous. Surely the members of'our public bodies are not going to shelter behind that-kind of thing.—W.A.S.