NAPIER HARBOUR

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXIX, Issue 155, 10 July 1934, Page 6

NAPIER HARBOUR

Development Scheme OPPOSITION VIEWS VOICED BY MESSRS JULL AND BROWN Views in strong opposition to the Napier Harbour Board’s proposal to raise a loan for the development of the breakwater harbour, were advanced by Mr A. E. Jull, M.P., and Mr R. D. Brown, both members of the board, when they addressed ratepayers in the Municipal Theatre, Waipukurau, last evening. Ther* was a fairly large attendance. The deputy Mayor (Mr J. McCarthy) presided and introduced the speakers, who, at the conclusion of their addresses, were accorded a hearty vote of thanks. Mr Brown’s Viewpoint In his opening remarks, Mr Brown said that he went on to the board with no fixed, ideas. He was prepared, and still was prepared, to support what appeared to him to be for the best ultimately for Hawke’s Bay. He had studied the board’s proposal to develop the breakwater harbour and had to tell the ratepayers that he was unable to support it. At the present time he would not support the expenditure of a similar amount on the inner harbour. ' Diversion of Tutaekuri Referring to the diversion of the Tutaekuri river, now an accomplished fact, the speaker said that there was now no silt reaching the inner harbour by way of the river, yet the board, which had contributed £15,000 toward the diversion was now prepared to disregard any benefits which would accrue from it.

Ono of the arguments advanced in favour of the breakwater proposal was that the work would help to relieve unemployment, but he pointed out that if the scheme were completed and proved successful the 100 to 150 men at present engaged in lightering would be thrown out of work permanently. It was also argued that the wages paid during the undertaking would greatly increase spending power, but at tho end of four and a half years that spending power, estimated at £40,000 a year, would disappear, and the annual expenditure of £20,000 on lightermen’s wages would have been done away with. From the countryman’s point of view, too, the saving made by the elimination of lightering would be more than offset by the heavy burden of interest and sinking fund payments.

Referring to th eengineers’ report of 1932, Mr Brown said that the additional expenditure recommended for the modified harbour scheme was £375,000, and the nett loan indebtedness after the works were completed was estimated at £957,000. The loan indebtedness had already increased by the best part of £lOO,OOO since 1932, and the present loan indebtedness was £668,0150. If the present Breakwater proposals were completed the indebtedness would increase to £1,003,872, or to £1,541,872 if the full scheme were carried out. Cost of Handling Cargo

The capital cost of handling a ton of cargo at Napier under the full 'scheme would be £4 14/2, and £i> 0/3 under the proposed (modified) scheme, in comparison with other harbour charges ranging from 7/1 a ton at Lyttelton to £2 14/4 at Dunedin. It was only 8/3 per ton at Wellington— Napier’s only rival in harbour business, Under the proposed scheme each ton of cargo handled would be loaded with 5/- for interest and sinking fund, compared with 5d at Wellington, and when the harbour was completed, which would be inevitable were the modified scheme carried out, this loading would be increased to 7/9 per ton. Thus the bogey of centralisation, which was held, up as one of the principal reasons why people should vote for the proposals, would actually be brought nearer. Mr Brown went on to deal with a report given by Mr J. P. Kenny, secretary of the Harbour Board, in reply to a letter from the Transport Co-ordination Board. Mr Kenny had reported that cargo which until recently was seaborne was now largely carried by rail under the truck system, for as much as 30 per cent, below normal rail charges. ‘/So much for the competition that is now with us,” said Mr Brown. Mr Kenny had added that the truck system which he said might be extended to include Napier, reduced the cost of rail transport to shillings in comparison with pounds under the classified system. Overhead Costs Any more expenditure would only further handicap the port by increasing

overhead costs, said Mr Brown, but if things were left well alone he was confident that there was no prospect of the port’s export trade being adversely affected by competition. Referring to the accountant’s report, which had been held up as the last word in approval of the scheme,. Mr Brown said that the certificate was very guarded. It dealt only with the figures which had been placed before the auditors and not with the accuracy of the estimates. In conclusion the speaker said, that from 1901 to 1932 the local body loan indebtedness of the Dominion as a whole had risen from £lO 15/4 to £4B 2/2 per capita. Borrowing had exceeded the bounds of reason. It was now for the people to see that they got value for their money, and it seemed to him that, so far as the proposed harbour loan was concerned, they would not get value for their money. If ratepayers had any doubts “i in the matter of proceeding with the proposal scheme they should vote against the loan. Mr Tull's Address Commencing his address Mr Jull said that,although he had been an advocate of the inner harbour for many years he was not seeking to voice its merits at present as he felt that the time was not opportune for major construction work of any kind. The early history of the breakwater proposal, said Mr Jull, was that it was denounced by an eminent engineer, who suggested expenditure on the improvement of the inner harbour. That, however, did not suit the Napier people, and competitive designs (with a prize of £500) were called for the best harbour for Hawke’s Bay. The adjudicators—London marine engineers—selected the design of .a Mr Culcheth, of Melbourne, which was for an inner harbour, but the board turned this down and adopted a plan designed by Mr John Goodall. The object was always to relieve the district of thje cost of lightering, but to-day, although approximately £500,000 had been spent on the breakwater and £500,000 levied in rates from the people (despite \ the fact that there was to have been no rating) lightering con- . tinned. “When one remembers the promises' of the past one is bound to feel very shy of accepting any similar proposals to-day ” said Mr Jull, < Would Ships Come In? j When the development scheme was being discussed by tho board, continued Mr Jull, he had urged that a copy of the plan with the soundings should be pent to the overseas shipping companies to see whether they would bring their ships in when the work was completed. The board had refused to do this, but the chairman had later gone to Wellington and come back with a verbal report that ho had been received most courteously by the shipping companies who had offered every co-opera-tion and “a lot of other piffling stuff.’’ The shipping companies had not said that they would bring their ships in, but that it depended on London. One had suggested another wharf and another that an area in the bay be dredged. The board chairman had said this was a small matter, but the speaker had an estimate from a competent engineer that 200,000 cubic yards would have to be moved and the present dredge, working in a comparatively sheltered position, was shifting only 13,000 cubic yards a month. Mr .Tull then went on with the aid of maps to explain the details of the board’s scheme of development for thebreakwater harbour. I Scheme Criticised 7 The fairway, it was proposed, should be dredged to 30 feet, and there would be 35 feet of water alongside the wharf. He considered that a much greater area would have to be dredged than that proposed in order to provide fl a swinging basin. Now that the " river had been diverted there was no need for the proposed jetty. The board, however, wanted to spend the £20,000 and when it was spent thelighters would not use it. Overseas masters to-day stated that they would not use the Breakwater owing to the lack of protection, and that being so, he failed to see how larger vessels could be expected to use the proposed harbour, which would not offer any more protection to a new wharf than the Glasgow Wharf was now receiving* “In. For a Million” The speaker expressed the opinion that if the proposed scheme were undertaken the ratepayers would be “id for a million,” as the shipping companies would wait until the modified scheme was finished and then say that’ their ships Could not come in until the full harbour was completed. Although the proposed loan did not

contain a direct rating clause, Mr dull reminded his audience,’the board had had an unexpired loan of £265,0D0 in London on which it had full rating powers which could bo exercised. Savings On Lighterage Mr Jull went on to deal with the savings which it was claimed would result from the abolition of lighterage. Regarding the anticipated saving of £28,843 on meat, Mr Jull said he had got in touch with the Prime Minister, who secured from the Meat Board a comparison between the consolidated charge (the overall charge for slaughtering, freezing, freight, etc.) at Wellington and at Napier. “I find that precisely the same charge is made, so that the producer through Napier is not being charged a penny more than the producer through Wellington,” he said. The benefit of any reduction in charges would be divided between the shipping and fretezing companies and would not accrue to the producers individually. Charges On Wool A saving of £B7OO in the lighterage of wool was also claimed but the speaker held that unless it could be shown that buyers were paying more at Wellington sales than at Napier sales for the same grade of wool, then the producer shipping through Napier was not penalised, and ' accordingly he would not receive any saving through the elimination of lighterage. “It-is not the farmer who is paying for the lightering of the wool; it is the buyer” said Mr Jull. A saving of £15,000 was anticipated in petrol alone, but it whs unlikely that the various oil companies would embark on costly storage tanks and scrap their existing stations. Petrol at New Plymouth, Wanganui and Timaru was the same price as at Napier. The Inner Harbour Mr Jull went on to suggest an alternative to the board’s proposal. “What we should do is to carry out the recommendation of the commission which sat seven years ago,” he said. The commission had said that the saving of lighterage would only shift the burden from one set of shoulders to another, .and suggested that the present facilities should be put in order. There was no reason why this should not be done to-day, except for the intense indisposition of the board to do anything to improve the inner harbour facilities. Chilled Beef Continuing,' Mr Jull said that one argument advanced for the board’s proposal was that, with the possibility of developing the chilled beef trade, lightering could not be carried out. He had found, however, that in the Argentine they did lighter beef, even as far as 100 miles, and further, Swift’s were considering lightering chilled beef at Wairoa. ’ In any case the speaker did not consider that Hawke’s Bay was altogether suitable for chilled beef trade, as the cattle must be bred and kept exclusively for the purpose and not run in conjunction with sheep. There was no prospect of doing away with lightering for 5 or 6 years, so there was no hurry. They could afford to wait and see what was done at Wairoa and elsewhere in regard to the lightering of chilled beef. In conclusion Mr .Tull appealed to all farmers and ratepayers generally to exercise their votes. The Awatoto Block In reply to a. question Mr Jull strongly criticised the board’s handling of the Awatoto block endowment, as the result of which, he said, it would be three generations before any return was obtained.