REPLIES TO CRITICISM

Taranaki Daily News, 15 April 1932, Page 5

REPLIES TO CRITICISM

THE PORT OF new PLYMOUTH

BOARD’S POLICY DEFENDED.

■SOUND DEVELOPMENT AL LINE'S.

t FALL IN TRADE CAUSES RATE.

. Vigorous defence of its policy of harbour administration was made by the chairman and country members particularly at the meeting of the New Plymouth Harbour Board yesterday in reply to the criticism evoked by the striking of the rate, levelled at the board by Cr. S. Vickers at the meeting of the Taranaki County Council on Monday. The chairman, outlining the development of the port, claimed that it had been developed on sound lines until it was now (exclusive of the coal ports) the fifth overseas port in the Dominion, and was capable of accommodating the largest ship trading to the Dominion. The statements made by Cr. Vickers in his criticism he characterised as contrary to fact; remarking also that sometimes it had been said “that in proportion to a man’s ignorance so is his confidence.”

The country representatives also strenuously denied that they had been dominated by the town members, or that any squandering of funds had taken place, but said that they, in common with the town members, had economised in expenditure wherever possible, It was made clear that the fall in trade was the fundamental cause of the necessity for striking the rate. Though he was sorry to have to refer to them, said Mr. Bellringer, there had been uncalled-for criticism and statements regarding the board and its pol'icy by Mr. S. Vickers at the. last meeting of the Taranaki County Council. It was certainly not in good taste for members of one local body to debate and criticise another public body in that way. He did not propose to answer the criticism but proposed to go through the statements, and ,show that there was not a vestige of truth in them; that they existed only in Mr. Vickers’ imagination. CONSOLIDATION OF DISTRICT. Mr. Vickers had criticised the board for its' failure to consolidate the district, but Mr. Bellringer considered Mr. Vickers should surely have known that the board had nothing to do with the .establishment ‘of the different harbour districts. When slices of the district were but out' the harbour boards of that day had to acquiesce because the people of those areas, considering they were entitled to a harbour district, placed their claims before Parliament, which had constituted t- districts, and the boundaries were arranged after a conference between the parties concerned. He was not a member of- the board when it had 'been decided that the Waimate district should be omitted from any future loans after the loan of 1909. It* was perfectly clear, said Mr. Bellringer, that any move for consolidation .must come from the outside district affected. For the harbour board to movein that direction would at once expose them to the suspicion of endeavouring to take advantage of the financial conditions to try to force the other districts to come in. If the Waitara district, for instance, wanted to come in, it was only right that the movement should first come from Waitara.. It ,would be futile, and in fact unfair, to promote a Bill to force any district, in. If' the people in any district realised that their interests were so wrapped up in the New Plymouth area., it. was a matter for themselves to decide. He was satisfied it would be impossible to bring about any amalgamation if the move first came from the board. It' might, of course, happen that owing to the. economic conditions it would 'be advisable to readjust local bodies and so alter boundaries, but if that were so the. matter would be taken up from a Dominionwide viewpoint. It was certain that the board was not responsible for the present position and could do nothing to force the other districts into ib: area. DEFENCE OF MEMBERS. Mr. Bellringer took strong exception to the statement by Mr. Vickers that tha five country members, Messrs E. Maxwell, W. T. Wells, W. C. Clement, D. J. Malone and H. C. Taylor, , who had been parties to the squandering that had apparently taken place,” had power to authorise expenditure and impose a rate from which their district crot off very lightly. Some of them only acted at the dictation of the town members, Mr. Vickers had said, and characterised that as a damnable state of affairs. . , ~ , Mr. Bellringer characterised that , reflection on men who occupied responsible positions in their, own districts as a pure invention. The issue of town ve--sus country had never been raised, in the board as it had been by Mr. Vickers. On the board they worked together amicably in the interests of the ratepayers, as a whole. Regarding criticism of wharf construction and maintenance Mr. Bellringer said he was not conscious of ever haying made the statement attributed to him by Mr. Vickers that it. would be ini' possible to keep the Moturoa wharf in repair for more than two years. When the board was placing the loan proposals before the ratepayers the idea was to erect a new wharf at -Moturoa, and he had stated that if the present wharf had to carry the whole increasing trade of the port it would not bear tne strain for more than a year or so, and ha thought he was quite right. However, with the proposal to construct the Newton King wharf the whole position was changed, as by transferring a great part of the increasing trade to the new wharf it became possible to relieve the Moturoa wharf of a good deal of the strain and treat it as a wharf to be used in case of emergency. The board therefore decided to maintain one overseas berth at the Moturoa wharf and two coastal berths on the breakwater side of the wharf. The conditions therefore were entirely different and were brought about by the vastly increased trade of the district.

NEWTON KING WHARF. Referring to the criticism of the Newton King wharf Mr. Bellringer asked the harbourmaster if it were the case that the extension had run right into the fairway. He received the reply from Captain Mclntyre that the extension was in no way detrimental to the fairway and certainly did not block the approach of shipping. The chairman said, therefore, that he would just say that that statement did not contain a vestige of truth. Regarding he allegation of the Newton King whirl's ‘'spidery” construction Mr. Bellringer said the wharf had been built on the best principles of engineering and had stood the test in a remarkable ‘manner, as was shown by the fact that the total cost in upkeep and maintenance for the four years from 1928 had been £4046, an average of

£lOll a year. That included painting the windscreens, etc., as well as keeping in order that part of the wharf that was exposed to the impact of the shipping and the consequent wear and tear. Even if they had built a concrete wharf, it would have been essential to provide a complete and elaborate system of spring piling, and in all probability the upkeep of that would have been nearly as great as the upkeep of the outside piles of the present wharf. COST OF MAINTENANCE. Mr. Bellringer admitted the cost of maintenance of a wooden wharf increased as the structure became older, but at the present time the maintenance cost of the whole wharf, which cost £130,000, was very low, being a fraction under 11 per cent. A complete inspection of the wharf had been made recently by the engineer before there was any idea that he would have to make the present statement, and the engineer expressed himself as very gratified with the splendid state of the structure. Both Mr. Burgess and the speaker, who had been invited to accompany the engineer on his final in- • spection prior to his departure, nad been very satisfied with the way the wharf had stood up. Great care had been taken in its construction, only the. best timber being used. In fact, the timber used had been so closely scrutinised, almost one-third being cast out as unfit, that the contractors had sent, a man across from Australia, considering that the board had been too exacting. The wharf certainly had .been built to very satisfactory specifications and in no way could be deemed a “spidery” construction. Some people not familiar with the position, said Mr. Bellringer, might wonder why the board had abandoned the idea of building a concrete wharf in favour of a timber one. In 1922. trade was increasing so rapidly that it was impassible for the Moturoa wharf to deal with it. The consulting engineer, Mr. Blair Mason, at first favoured the construction of a concrete wharf 800 feet long and 90 feet wide at an estimated cost of £125,000, and the board adopted that idea and put in hand the preliminaries. A number of difficult questions had first to be solved, and after very mature consideration the late Mr. Newton King moved at a meeting in October, 1922, that the resolution be rescinded and that the wharf be erected in timber. The reasons were that there were at that time signs of a much greater increase in trade than had been anticipated, and on the advice of their engineer and the harbourmaster, the late Captain Waller, whose advice with that of Captain Chudley and other marine ■superintendents, was always sought and valued by the board in matters affecting the development of the port, it was considered the position would be best met by the speedy construction of a wharf in timber. That, it was estimated, would take 15 months, but owing to delay in the arrival of timber it actually took 18 months, whereas the concrete wharf Whs estimated to take three years.

WOOD CONSTRUCTION DECIDED. The board therefore decided to build a wooden wharf 800 feet long and 70 feet wide at an estimated cost of £BO,OOO, or £45,000 less than the concrete would cost. Mr. Blair Mason pointed out that the £45,000 saved, if invested at 6 per cent, compound interest, would produce in 12 years sufficient to pay the cost of the wharf, and, moreover, if at any time Owing to the development of the port it became necessary to move the wharf, that could be more readily and economically done if it were constructed in wood. As the work proc ?ded it was found that they were up against extraordinarily heavy dredging, necessitating a considerable amount of blasting of solid stone. So much so, indeed, that had the wharf been built in concrete the dredging would have had to have been completed before its construction could have been started, as the shots fired would have damaged a concrete wharf..

Mr. Bellringer asserted that the board was justified in constructing the wharf in wood as the wharf had carried the bulk of the trade, had stood up excel-, lently to its work and had done yeoman, service to the district. It was a credit to the district and the engineers, and in no way merited the opprobrium cast on it by Mr. Vickers. There was no vestige of.truth either in the statement that the wharf had been built in the roughest part of the harbour, added Mr. Bellringer. He asked the harbourmaster his opinion. Captain Mclntyre said that in heavy northerly weather the outer end of the wharf was in the rough part of the harbour, but where else could it have been Built? The inner part was much more secure than the Moturoa wharf. In fact, he would say that on the whole there was little to choose between the two. If anything there was more surge at the Moturoa wharf than at the Newton King wharf. A ship had never had to leave the wharf owing to rough weather. SAFETY AT THE WHARF. The chairman said that on one occasion the commander of one of His Majesty’s ships at the wharf was so concerned for- the safety of his ship because it was blowing so hard that .he rose from his bed, but after having a look round was so satisfied that he went back to bed and slept soundly. It was a tribute to the safety of the port that since 1917, of all the overseas ships entering the port not one had had to put out to sea owing to the weather. At the luncheon given on the Tamaroa Captain C'hudley had stated that he was proud of the port of New Plymouth, which was the finest artificial harbour he knew of and was certainly the finest in New Zealand. In all matters relating, to shipping the board had always consulted the men who manned and controlled ship-. ping, as well as the harbourmaster, Cap-' tain Waller, a man of sterling integrity, in whom all had the greatest confidence. The board had never gone against his pdvice. In extending the Newton King wharf it was at first intended by the engineers that the * addition should be 250 feet, but it had been pointed out that an extension of 400 feet would enable two overseas vessels to be berthed and worked on the one side of the' wharf at once, and that had been done. The chairman said the fact that the port was gradually securing the whole import trade of the district was a sign of confidence. He doubted whether more than 5000 tons came in otherwise. It was bringing down costs to the importer. Since 1924 when the Newton King wharf began to operate, the total trade of the port had been over 100,000 tons (440,000 tons imports and 270 000 exports), all overseas; the bulk of it had come over the Newton King wharf. The saving therefore, at a very modest estimate of £1 per ton, which he considered erred on the side of safety, would amount to £700,000. -+;mate Members: A very safe estimate. Mr. Bellringer said he could hardly understand any public man endeavour inn- to set into circulation a statement ihat the tliarf had been extended mto the fairway and was in the part of the harbour, the inference being that it was unsafe for shipping. While sorry such statements had been made the chairman said he felt that he would not have been doing his duty un.ess he had shown the fallacy of the criticism.

STATEMENTS REFUTED. Mr. E. Maxwell said that the chairman had traversed the ground very thoroughly. It was regrettable, when they realised how pleased the chairman and secretary were to give full particulars to nil ratepayers interested, that Mr. Vickers had not availed himself of the opportunity of becoming sure of the facts, and so have not placed himself in his unfortunate position. As to his particular statement regarding the Newton King wharf’s “spidery” construction and being placed in the roughest part of the harbour, it was certainly realised by everyone that it was a veiy fine wharf. All realised also that the harbour area was limited, and it must be clear to everyone that the Newton King wharf had been placed in the best position possible. There had been a division of opinion over the position. Mr. J. S. Connett, chairman of the county council meeting at which the statements were made, was a member of the Harbour Board at the time, and he had strongly advocated that its position should bo further out—closer to the freezing works. The board had always been, guided by the opinion of its consulting engineer, harbourmaster and the marine superintendents. Guided by that advice and their own intelligence, they had considered the site absolutely unsuitable, firstly, because in the outer position the wharf would have had no shelter as it would have been built practically outside the harbour in a most exposed position.

The harbourmaster: It might just as well have been built at Waitara.

INCREASED COST TO FACE.

(Secondly, continued Mr. Maxwell, there would have been the increased cost of dredging to face. Regarding the statement made by Mr. Vickers as to the location of his (Mr. Maxwell’s) property, he was pleased to state that it was not in the Opunake district. As a country member, said Mr. D. J. Malone, he took strong exception to the remarks. It surprised him that any man occupying such prominent public positions should make such unfair statements. His chief objection was to the remark in which Mr. Vickers described the country members as “a lot of jelly fish,” voting yea or nay at the dictation of the town members. That was a most ridiculous statement. In fairness to the town members and the chairman, he wished to state that during the time he had been on the board the country members had always received the fairest treatment. The statement that those residing in sheltered areas had inflicted rates on people residing in less favoured areas was contrary to fact. The arrangement of the areas had been brought about long before he became a member of the board.

The chairman: Mr. Maxwell is the only member who was on the board then.

Continuing, Mr. Malone refuted the statement that the country members had apparent/y been parties to squandering. During his four years on the board he had never seen any suggestion of squandering. In fact, the reverse had been the case, for as a member of the staff reorganisation committee it had been his unpleasant duty to practice a large number of economies, including the discharging of old and faithful servants and the reduction of salaries, so that his little effort had been entirely in the other direction.

BOARD’S POSITION RECOGNISED.

In his district, he was pleased to say, >the representatives of local bodies had accepted the rate in a fair spirit, and he might say, more intelligently. They had made themselves conversant with the necessity for. the rate and very little opposition had been voiced. They recognised that through the falling-off of overseas trade the board had run into difficult times, as had other bodies. It certainly did seem a miserable spirit when a member of a brother local body should make an attack upon them when they were suffering for something for which they were not responsible. He considered that the present was only a passing phase and that the sun would shine again; that in a few years, if it were not possible to eliminate the rate entirely, it would be considerably reduced.

Mr. H. C. Taylor said he could endorse the remarks of the other speakers. Every courtesy had been extended to the country members by the town members, who had also given them all possible information and assistance in the committees set up. He had never known the town members attempt to dominate the position or ride rough-shod over them. DIFFERENTIAL RATES. The differential rate . had been criticised, remarked Mr. Taylor, it being stated that the ratepayers, whether in No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 area, received equal benefit. That, he contended, was not so, as figures could be produced to show that the producer living nearer the port gained a great advantage/over those in the outer areas in the matter of freight charges. For instance, the railway freight on dairy produce according to the tariff (irrespective of any special arrangement tha.t might be made) to Moturoa from Stratford was ISs. Id. per ton as against 12s. 4d. from Inglewood, Bs. 4d. from Lepperton and 6s. 9d. from Bell Block, while from Whangamomona, which county he represented, the freight was 31s. 3d. It was plain that the producer living in the No. 1 area had his produce taken to the port at from onehalf to one-third of the cost of those in the No. 2 and No. 3 areas. The freight on manures in minimum 6-ton lots at per ton was from New Plymouth to Eltham 4s. 5d., Inglewood 2s. 5d., Bell Block and Lepperton 2s. Id. A flat rate, therefore, would be unfair to the producers in the outer areas as they were already tremendously handicapped by freight charges. During the 24 years since the differential _ rating had been settled the producers in the No. 1 area must have benefited to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds by the lesser freights, and no doubt that fact was taken into consideration when the differential basis of rating was settled 24 years ago. To attempt to alter it now would be unfair. Mr. W. T. Wells, as the representative of the district that was not liable for the payment of the rate, a fact which they could, not help, denied that the town members had ever tried to influence the country members, but had given them all information. He had seen no squandering but every member had studied economy as far as possible. When they compared the port as it Was in 191'7 with to-day they certainly had something to show, even if they had spent the money. He believed the harbour was the only artificial port in New Zealand. Mr. Connett, who had been a member of the board, should have been cognisant of the position. Mr. J. R. Cruickshank said that as far as it was possible to do so the board had met the requirements of overseas shipping, and the fact that exclusive of the coal ports New Plymouth was now ranked as the fifth port in the Dominion was an answer to their critics. It had facilities for handling and working simultaneously three overseas vessels with a depth of 24 feet low water spring tides, and ample depth at each of the wharves. The volume of trade had suffered by reason of the fact that New Plymouth was subject to the same circumstances that had created a decrease in the trade of other New Zealand ports, circumstances that could not be anticipated or guarded against. Mr. C. H. Burgess said that though not mentioned by Mr. Vickers he was

really a country representative, and he lived in the country also. Town members of the committee might have to act at times in case of emergency, but they had never attempted to influence the country members as regarded the working of the port. Mr. J. H. H. Holm remarked that every vessel trading to the Dominion could work the port and lie safely there in all weathers. VALUE OF THE PORT. The chairman did not thin'k the statements would have been made by a public man if he had realised the true posh tiou. The value of the port was shown by .the fact that since it was first opened to overseas shipping 620 vessels had worked'the port —460 since the Newton King wharf was opened in 1924— and though they had been there in all sorts of weather not one ship had been compelled to leave the port. Only one mishap of any magnitude had occurred —to the Hauraki—and that was not due to any defect of the port. The port could accommodate any ship trading to the Dominion, as. was shown by the fact that the Rotorua of 12,000 tons would be there in a few days. All ports were suffering from the world-wide depression. He considered that in providing such a deep-water port, which had been dug out of conglomerate, on the' whole excellent work had been done. He would not say that mistakes had not been made, because in a work of such magnitude that would not be possible. Compared with the successful work that had made the port the fifth overseas port in New Zealand (exclusive of the coal ports) the errors were as raindrops to the ocean.

Defending the policy of not proceeding with the new Moturoa wharf, Mr. Bellringer said that he in common with some other members four years ago sensed the fact that there was likely to be a smaller increase in the trade of the port than had taken place in the previous few years, and had deliberately stayed their hands in the erection of the new wharf. Had they gone ahead the district would probably have

been, faced with a rate of £45,00(1 oi £46,000, instead of £22,000. He question’ ed if any other board with loan monel could show an unexpended balance <w £350,000. Mr. Cruickshank pointed out that is 1923 the total cargo inwards and out* wards handled at the wharf was 156,573. The quantity had grown steadily until in 1929, the peak year, it had reached 200,959 tons. During the last two; years, however, it had dropped to 157,642-tons. The board was not able to provide against such a decline in trade and .the resultant loss of revenue, which was the fundamental cause of the board having to strike a rate. Had the same proportionate rate of increase continued; or had the trade been maintained at the same level as in 1929, the board would have been able to carry on without any rate. Every other harbour board except those with endowments was faced with the same position.