TIMARU HARBOUR

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18235, 20 November 1924, Page 6

TIMARU HARBOUR

♦■ THE RECENT COMMISSION. •SOAKD MAKES AN ERROR. ■'SPECIAL TO "SES PSZJS-") : TIMAET7, November 13. The f2Ct that the Timaru Harbour Board, in asking for a Royal Commission to report on its harbour improvement schemes, did not submit to the Minister of Marine the full wording of-its resolution asking for the appointment of the Commission, resulted in an unfavourable report being given upon the two schemes T>roposed without 'an alternative scheme being submitted by the Commission, which was what the Board wanted, but inadvertently omitted to ask for. The resolution referred to, passed on December 21st, 1923, was as follows: —"That the two schemes for harbour improvement prepared by Messrs Dobson and Clarke be submitted to a Eoyal Commission for a report as to which or part of either or any other scheme is the most suitable." The Board's letter to the Minister of Marine, dated December 31st, 1925, requested that a Commission might be appointed with a view of taking evidence and obtaining information on the practicability of the proposed plans of harbour extension at Timaru. There was no reference to any other scheme on the report of. the Commission coming to hand. It was discussed by the-Board, which felt that it was not being fairly treated in that while admitting the practicability : of the improvement schemes, the report "condemned them on the ground of expense. The Board felt that it was'in a sufficiently, good financial position to warrant the expenditure proposed. Its dissatisfaction took a more active form at its meeting in August, when it was decided that the Minister of Marine should be asked to' visit Timaru and discuss the position with the Board. As a result of this discussion, which took place to-day, it has been decided that if possible the Commission shall be revived so that it can proceed with its investigations from where it left off, and provide the Board with an alternative scheme if, as is the opinion of some members of tha Board, it has' one in mind.' An important point which became evident as a result of to-day's disclosures was that as was stated by the secretary of the Board, he had handed to the Commission on its arrival in Timaru a copy of the resolution by which the Board had decided to ask for the appointment of a Commission, and the Commission was therefore aware before it commenced work that the terms of its order of reference did not exactly comply with the requirements, of the Board. It had nevertheless proceeded with its investigations.

The Discussion, The members present at the special meeting of the Board to meet the Minister of Marine (the Hon. G. J. Anderson) were Messrs W. Hayman (chairman), T. B. Garrick, D. C. Turnbull, H. 8.. S. Johnstone, J. Kennedy,W.'T. Eitchie, E. E.lsaac, W. H. Orbell, J. Campbell, J. .Bitchener, M.P., F. E.. Flatman, and A. E. Guild. . <•> . Mi P. J. Eolleston, M.P., introduced the Minister to the Board.

In the discussion which followed,.Mr Eitchie said that all that the Board proposed to spend primarily was about £250,000,.and he could-not see how that was "going to get them into deep; water financially. An increase of 1-16 of a penny in the rate's would provide for it. • ■'-'-'• :•--■•• ;

Mr Bitchener said that his view, reaxling between the lines of the report of the Commission,, was that they had seme other scheme in mind which would be as effective as the. Bashing- Eocks scheme at less cost. This, he thought, was their reason for rejecting the Board's proposals on the ground of expense. The Minister said he, would like to know exactly what it was the Board had decided that the Commission should investigate. The secretary then read, the resolution quoted above.

The Minister said the Board had been barking up the wrong tree. The letter he had received from the Board was not identical with the resolution . they had passed. That was obvious.- He had given his instructions to the Commission on the advice he had received. It was not the Commission's mistake, or his mistake, but the Board's. There was no use in blaming anyone in the matter, for all that had been asked for was a report on the two schemes proposed. There had been nothing in the letter he had received to indicate that they wanted- the Commission to submit an alternative scheme if it could.

The secretary said that the resolution had been handed to the Commission on its arrival in Timaru. . ' ' * The Minister said that the Commission could not go beyond the instructions in its order of reference,. which had not instructed it to find an alternative scheme.. Had the full wording of the Board's resolution been sent to him it would have been incorporated in the order of reference, and he • was quite satisfied that the Board "would have r got what it wanted. '■ Mr Turnbull asked if it would not be possible to have the . Commission down again. The Minister said -■ the Commission could" probably be revived. Mr Turnbull said the Commission had not taken any evidence as to the financial standing of the district or the ratepayers' willingness to. pay for the improvements. The Minister: We know all that.

Mr Ritchie asked if it would not be possible to empower the Commission to give the Board any information it had as to an alternative scheme. The' Minister said the matter was chiefly a legal one, and he would have to find out whether it would be possible to revive the Commission. Mr Ritchie asked if the finding of the recent Commission would put the Dashing Rocks scheme out of court. The Minister replied that it would not do so.

Finally, on the motion of Mr D. C. Turnbull, the following resolution was carried unanimously:—'' That the Minister of Marine, be asked to revive the Commission that reported on the harbour improvement scheme, and that the Commission be asked to report, in terms of the Board's resolution of December 21st, 1923."