HARBOUR BOARD CRITICISM.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 April 1932, Page 6

HARBOUR BOARD CRITICISM.

Mr S. Vickers’ charges against the administration of the New Plymouth Harbour Board arose out of the necessity of striking a harbour rate. His reluctance to see a further 'burden of local taxation added, to the already heavy load primary producers are carrying can be understood and sympathised with. Mr. Vickers attacked the country members of the harbour, board in no uncertain words. His principal charges were that squandering of money by the harbour board was primarily responsible for a rate ’being necessary, that works promised when the loan was raised had not been carried out, and that country members representing districts where the proposed rate would press lightly if at all had obeyed the behest of the town members to the detriment of other country districts where the harbour rate will be heavier. Mr. Vickers also challenged the form of construction of the Newton King wharf and even the position chosen for its erection. The chairman of the board, Mr. C. E. Bellringer, and his colleagues had little difficulty in refuting the charges. They were able to show that economy and not extravagance had moulded the board’s policy; that if the new Moturoa wharf projected when the last loan was raised had not been built it was because prudence called a halt in the programme and the loan money had therefore not been spent; that country members had not subordinated their judgment to that of representatives of the town and district of New Plymouth, and that not only was the Newton King wharf constructed on lines approved by the best engineering advice available but had been placed in the most advantageous position for tho development of tho port. The reason a rate is necessary, Mr. Bellringer again showed, is that import trade has fallen owing to the general depression and the harbour earnings have dropped in sympathy, also that the revenue from the land fund is now only a shadow of its former self. The facts and figures are there for all who desire to probe them. After all, the success of the port must be judged primarily by the use made of it by shipowners. On that ground defence of the Harbour Board’s administration is as easy as it is conclusive. Mr. Vickers’ criticism will have done good in that it has again given the board an opportunity of explaining its policy in regard to harbour development and the movement of trade that has made inevitable the striking of a rate.