Timaru seeks action against Lyttelton

Press, 14 April 1979, Page 3

Timaru seeks action against Lyttelton

PA Timaru The Timaru Harbour Board seeks Ministerial intervention to combat a move by its northern neighbour, Lyttelton, to obtain loan moneys for inner-harbour development without recourse to the Ports Authority. The Lyttelton Harbour Board has withdrawn its application to the Ports Authority for approval of its plans, quoted variously at between $984,000 and SLI6M. The board now proposes to use the provisions of the Lyttelton Harbour Board Loan and Empowering Act, 1962, and claims to be able to do this without having to obtain the prior consent of the Ports Authority.

This work has been reported to be to enable the port to handle roll-on and quarter-ramp ships and, more particularly, to compete with the Port of Timaru in these areas.

The Timaru board’s chairman (Mr B. J. Petrie), in a memorandum to members, maintains that if the Lyttelton device is possible, the northern board is “making a mockery of the most important statutory responsibilities of the Ports Authority,” which were to “foster an integrated and efficient port system for New Zealand” and “to prepare a national ports plan for the development of ports and harbours in New Zealand.”

Mr Petrie said he had received advice from the Lyttelton board in a letter. “Notice of withdrawal of the application to the Ports Authority was apparently given to the Ports Authority by letter, dated March 9, 1979, but no public information was released,”- Mr Petrie said.

He had immediately sent telegrams to the chairman of the Ports Authority (Mr D. N. McKay) and to the Minister of Transport (Mr McLachlan).

The Ports Authority had also advised the Timaru board of the withdrawal of the Lyttelton application.

In his communication to the Ports Authority, Mr Petrie expressed his board’s concern that national planning aims could be circumvented by use of a local act of 1962. In a letter to the Minister, following up thq telegram, Mr Petrie said the Lyttelton procedure destroyed all the principles under which ports had believed they ought to act and the respect which the Ports Authority had hitherto enjoyed. “In the circumstances we request that you exercise power as vested in you alone to initiate an inquiry by the Ports Authority into the Lyttelton board’s procedures and the merits of their proposed works,” Mr Petrie said in the letter.

“We do not believe that this board is seeking any special favours in this respect, but simply ask that Lyttelton should submit to the same jurisdiction as any other port in New Zealand would have to do in the circumstances of carrying out capital works of this magnitude.

“We would appreciate your action and comments at your convenience.”

After being notified of the stand taken by Mr Petrie 6n behalf of the Timaru board, the deputy chairman of the Lyttelton Harbour Board (Captain A. R. Champion) said, “The decision to withdraw our application to the Ports Authority was taken after discussion and consultation wnn that authority.

“The decision was certainly not made to circumvent the statutory responsibilities of the authority,” he said, in disclaiming Mr Petrie’s contention.

The Lyttelton board had Its empowering legislation passed before the authority existed and, at the time, it

was the only means available for the board to finance schemes.

Captain Champion noted that his board still has schemes and loan approval under the 1962 Act to carry out works.

The board’s chairman (Mr J> E. Mannering) and general manager (Mr J. A. McPhail) were not available for comment becasue they are overseas.

Captain Champion said that Mr Petrie’s remarks would be fully discussed at the board's port development committee meeting on April