WANGANUI HARBOUR BILL STONEWALLED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 85, Issue 190, 14 August 1941, Page 6

WANGANUI HARBOUR BILL STONEWALLED

MOTION TALKED OUT BY THE OPPOSITION

UNCERTAIN WHEN THE MEASURE WILL AGAIN BE DISCUSSED

(Special to “Chronicle" . Parliament ItuiLlings, Aug. 13. The whole o£ the afternoon sitting of Parliament was spent in discussing the Local Bills Committee report on the Wanganui Harbour District and Empowering Amendment Bill. A strong attack was made by the Opposition on the principle involved in the me;, -ire. the contention being made that it amounted to a breach of a contract made when the original Act was passed in 1913. The discussion developed into a real stone wall, and a motion by the Committee that the Bill be allowed to proceed was talked out. It is uncertain when another opportunity will be given the House to adopt the recommendation.

The chairman of the Local Bills Committee, Mr. J. W. Munro, reported to the House that the committee recommended the Bill be allowed to proceed. Mr. W. J. Polson lOpp., Stratford) said that when the Bill was considered by the committee the chairman had laid it down as his opinion that the committee was only concerned with the rights and perogatives of the Crown, and not with the rights or wrongs of the Bill. That, he claimed, was the responsibility of Parliament. “I want to know what the committee i is for?” Mr. Polson said. Mr. Clyde Carr (Gov.. Timaru>: How did the Opposition members vote ? Mr. Polson. Thev voted against the Bill. Mr. A. S. Richards (Gov.. Roskill): How many were there? Mr. Richards Did Not Hear the Evidence. Mr. Polson said that all the Opposi- : tion members were there, but Mr. j Richards had not heard the evidence | and had come along late to lay down the law to the committee. The evidence which had been heard and had

not been contraverted, had been placed before the committee and that evidence was sufficient to show that the Bill should not be allowed to proceed. The Bill proposed to tear up a contract, and even the evidence of the representatives of the Harbour Board was sufficient to condemn it. The measure was not one which complied with conditions that could be tolerated by the House. The Bill proposed to destroy a contract which provided for rating on city and country, so that the burden would be increased on the country although the country had deteriorated while the city had grown. The House was the guardian and protector of the rights of the people, and should see that justice was done and solemn contracts maintained. They should not allow hardships to be imposed on a group of people who had no say. Mr. Munro: I agree with you. Chairman Was Fair.

Mr. Polson said that Mr. Munro, as chairman of the committee, had been very fair. He referred to the 1913 Hansard to prove what the agreement first made had been, and said that the promises made then had not been fulfilled. Not a single refrigerated ship had been got into the harbour and the cost of lightering cargo equalled the cost of railing it to Wellington. Mr. Carr: Wasn't that the fault of watersiders?

Mr. Polson smilingly replied that he would have to protect the watersiders from the insinuations of the member for Timaru. The watersiders at Wanganui gave as good a value as any in New Zealand. The Harbour Board had undertaken, in 1913, to

abolish one harbour and concentrate on Castlecliff, but. it had not done so and had wasted large sums as a result. It had also failed to keep its bargain in several other ways. Now they Wanted to tear up the contract altogether.

He moved that the Bill be referred back to the committee for further cons deration. If the committee was instructed to report on the merits of the Bill, he said, he was satisfied that it would be a very different report. The amendment was seconded by Mr. J. N. Massey (Opp., Franklin >. who said the whole of the evidence tenderc d to the committee was

strongly opposed to the Bill being allowed to proceed in its present form. If Ulis proposal succeeded, how many more local authorities would there be who would ask Parliament to break agreements? Mr. Massey referred to the changes that had taken place since the agreement was made, mentioning the employment of larger ships, and. particularly under war

conditions, the centralisation of cargo handling at the main ports. It had come out in the evidence taken before the committee that the Harbour Board had budgeted for a £7OOO deceit this year. If this was going to continue, what would the board do next year if produce was sent by rail to New Plymouth or Wellington? It followed that the board would have to make other arrangements. Values of Property. Mr. Clyde Carr said he thought one of the arguments used by Mr. Polson cut the ground from under his feet. If the value of property in Wanganui was increasing, then, proportionately, the people in the town would pay a higher rate, and if the value of property in the counties was depreciating, then, proportionately, the people in .the counties would pay a lower rate. When an unexpected situation developed it was the duty of all people to pool their resources and

. help. The tendency to-day was against differentiation. I Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont* i said the Bill was an absolute contral' diction to a bargain made, and, in his opinion, the House would not be doing itself justice if it endorsed a proposal. which he thought might be easily called a vicious one. Mr. E. B. K. Gordon (Opp.. RangF tikei), who also supported the amendment. claimed that no real argument had been trought forward in support of the Bill. He said that as time went on the rate per head in the city area was decreasing. Even at present the country wars definitely paying more than its fair share. Any talk of imposition of further taxation on the country to the relief of the town was definitely most unfair, and was a definite breach of contract. Patra Sympathises With Wanganui.

Mr..H. G. Dickie (Opp.. Patea) said that while one ’sympathised with Wanganui n having the upkeep of a “white elephant” in the shape of a harbour everyone must condemn the method that was sought to be put into operation to overcome the difficulties. County ratepayers had no chance of passing on any increases. whereas townspeople had. His opinion was that the Bill was a gross breach of faith. A tew people in Wanganui were seeking to repudiate their just debts, and he hoped the House would view the question from that angle. Mil A. S. Richards (Gov., Roskill) said that although he had not been able to be present at all the sittings of the committee, because of other business, he had sought from, and had been given by Mr. Polson, an explanation of the fundamental differences between the effect of the agreement and the proposal contained in the Bill. Although an agreement had

been arrived at some years ago, there was still something to be said for ask the counties to carry the difference in the total rate to be struck. He claimed that the rural areas’ capacity to carry rates was better than that of Wanganui city. Opposition members were protesting that an agreement was being torn up, but in 1932 they had torn up agreements by the dozen. Mr. Polson: But you opposed that. (Laughter). Mr. W A. Bodkin (Opp.. Centra' Otago) suggested that Mr. Munro should agree to take the Bill back so that the committee could review the evidence and give judgment in accordance with the principles put forward. However, he said, it was evident that the Bill wqs to be bludgeonthrough the House as a partj measure.

Sergeant J. B. F. Cotterill (Gov.. Wanganui): It is not a party matter. Mr. Bodkin retorted that it certainly appeared as if the Bill was getting the support of the Labour Party, as a party. He added that it would be in the interests of the Dominion to shut down the Wanganui harbour altogether. There would be a saving because ships would be turned round much Lister.

“A Very Small Bill,” Says Sergeant Cotterill. Sergeant Cotterill said it was very unusual for a local Bill to be challenged at its introduction, and on its report from the Local Bills Committee the House usually allowed a Bill to go to the second reading before voicing objections. In view of the

: volume of organised attack it was I rather difficult to get a say on the ■ matter. The Bill was a very small j one, and merely abolished a sub-sec-i tion in the Act dealing with the deferential rate. The original Bill was first introduced in 1911 and 1912, and was passed in 1913 in a much amended form. Mr. Polson had said that Parliament should see that justice was done, and that was the reason for the Bill. The deferential rate could not be justified, even by going back •28 years. What happened in 1913 ' could not stand now. Opposition ' members had argued that city resii dents got all the benefits from the i harbour, but they knew that if there i was no harbour there the farmers i would have to pay for harbour facili- ' tijes elsewhere. Full evidence had jT I n (heard by the committee and he . r'iv -jo reason why the Bill should be | jeferid back for more evidence. 1 Mr ftPolson: No, that it not the