FEDERATED FARMERS SEEK INFORMATION FROM HARBOUR BOARD

Wanganui Chronicle, 21 June 1949, Page 6

FEDERATED FARMERS SEEK INFORMATION FROM HARBOUR BOARD

An echo of the criticism of the Wanganui Harbour Board’s administration at last week’s meeting of the Wanganui Provincial Executive of Federated Farmers was heard at yesterday’s meeting of the hoard when a letter was received from Federated Farmers asking information on certain matters raised at the meeting by Mr. H. J. Morgan, of Fordell. The board agreed to reply to Federated Farmers, giving the information desired. The questions asked by Federated Farmers were: “What necessitates the debarring of the supervisor and the harbourmaster from meetings of the board? Is not their specialised knowledge of value to the board in its deliberations? “For what reason was the work recommended by the supervisor not carried out This, in spite of the fact that after a similarly ignored recommendation by the same supervisor in 1946, damage to the extent of £60,000 resulted. "For what reason was so much useful plant disposed of by the board at such low values? “Why did the board allow insufficient maintenance to necessitate the dismantling of the bucket dredge and, at the same time, allow the Auckland Harbour Board to snap up the South Island dredge for £3000? Hire since paid for the dredge must have reached the price asked for the South Island dredge. "Has sufficient consideration been given to the suggestion that a drag dredge be used in conjunction with the tug Kahanui?” “I appreciate the ’ invitation of Federated Farmers to meet them and to assist us if possible, but I am .sure that Mr. Morgan’s criticism was not an expression of the opinion of the full board,” said Mr. Millward. “In fact it is my view that all this criticism is coming from an outside source and I am not prepared to spend my time answering them all the time. As you are all aware we have to look to the Ministry of Works for expert advice and until we secure the services of a’ resident engineer, we cannot go past that policy.” QUESTIONS ANSWERED. The question of the supervisor and the harbourmaster not being permitted to attend meetings of the board was a purely domestic matter, said Mr. Millward. As a matter of fact these officers did attend meetings of the board and also attended meetings held every fortnight. “All our works are examined by the Marine Department and the Ministry of Works and Mr Sampson was very satisfied in spite of Mr. Morgan’s allegations,” said Mr. Millward. Work had never been stopped on the South Spit, although there had been holdups because of shortages of material and cement. Regarding the sale of the launch Togo, Mr. Millward said it was a very old story and happened long before the present board took office. He understood that the Togo was condemned and that this was the reason it was sold at a low price. The Hon. W. J. Rogers, M.L.C.: You will have to shoot Mr. Morrison and me over that. We are the only two members of the board who were members of the board at that time.

Continuing. Mr Millward said that if the board had been advised by mechanical engineers to sell it then the board should not be asked to account for that.

Dealing with the bucket dredge, Mr. Millward said that it had been dismantled on the advice of an engineer. The bucket line was worn and the cost of repairs would have been £2OOO. The board did make an offer for the Lyttelton dredge but it was turned down. Since the dredge had been sold to Auckland it had cost a packet of money. It would not have been able to go across the bar. The Kaione, said Mr. Millward, had at one stage been offered for sale at £25,000 because there was no market for her and he considered the board had done well to secure the price it did for the vessel. MUD DRAG UNSUCCESSFUL. The mud drag, said Mr. Millward, had been suggested by Mr. Mullins, the supervisor, and his first estimate of the cost was £25. He then came along and said it would cost £B5. The quotation received from an engineering firm was £136, plus sales tax. It was then found out that alterations would have to be made to the tug anc that the cost would be £5OO. In the meantime the board’s consulting engineer reported that this type of dredge had been tried at Greymouth and had not proved a success. As a result of the consulting engineer’s i ecommendation, it was decided not to go with th e proposal. “Questions were asked by only one man and not by Federated Farmers as a whole,” said Mr. G. G. Burgess, who was present at the farmers' meeting. It seemed to him that Mr. Morgan had not secured all his information from the press, but that some of it had been supplied by another source. "Our resolutions and the reasons for them are published in the press and I think that if that member of Federated Farmers had studied the press as closely as he said he would have seen why we made these decisions,” said Mr. Burgess.

The whole matter had been one of criticism and not of suggestions, said Mr. Kirk, who was also present at the meeting. He considered the board should not hide its light under a bushel hut should publicise the work that it had done. He considered that the board had done very well in securing a wharf shed costing £20,000 at no cost to the ratepayers. The board should also make it known that the river channel was better today than for many years, and the fact, too, that the South Spit had not been breached as had been suggested. “We certainly have our difficulties. I pointed out to Federated Farmers that w e have tremendous problems and very little money to deal with them.” Federated Farmers, or any other organisation,' was entitled to come along to the board to find out any facts, said Mr. G. C. Wells. He knew Mi\ Morgan personally, and considered that someone had put him up to it. “I do resent having to accept blame for the mistakes of the past,” said Mr D. McGregor. When he became n member of the board he decided he would do his best, but if he had to accept the blame for the mistakes of old boards they would net get anywhere. He considered that a reply should be sent to Federated Farmers setting out the board’s ideas and stating that it was not responsible for the errors ot past boards. It was agreed to send a suitable reply to Federated Farmers.