Harbour Bd 'within it’s rights’

Press, 19 April 1979, Page 13

Harbour Bd 'within it’s rights’

The Lyttelton Harbour Board is not infringing either the spirit or the in-1 tention of the Ports Authority Act with its proposals for financing badly needed inner harbour development, according to inquiries. A spokesman for the Ports Authority said the board’s Loan and Empowering Act, 1962, and a subsequent amendment in 1966, were wide-ranging and covered the inner harbour development proposals. The main works involve the demolition of No. 6i wharf and the provision ofi quarter-ramp, roll-on fac-| ilities on No. 7 wharf The chairman of the Lyttelton board (Mr J. E. Man-: nering) is expected to return for the meeting after a pro-i motion visP to Japan with the general manager (Mr J. A. McPhail) and the con-: tainer terminal manager (Mr! P. G. Morgan).

Mr McPhail and Mr Morgan are continuing to the United States and Europe to promote the port. The Ports Authority spokesman said the board had the right to proceed under iu own legislation covered by the Loan and Empowering Act because it was legislation approved before the authority came into power and the board did not now require approval from the authority.

A spokesman for the authority said the work could be done by the legislation the board had obtained itself under the Lyttelton Harbour Board Loan and Empowering Act, 1962. An application by the Lyttelton board seeking approval to raise loan moneys for the development of the inner harbour was withdrawn after the March 7 meeting of : the board reduced the ex-i penditure from 51.16 M to; $984,000. Inquiries showed that the; board is within its rights but! there was criticism over not! making the decision public'

iafter the meeting because two) objections had been receivedi Ito the Ports Authority] application. There is no limit to the] expenditure allowed on the; work, provided the money] covers the proposed work' outlined in the legislation. “In the case of the act for the Lyttelton board it just, so happens that it was wide enough to cover all the] works proposed for the) inner harbour," said the! Ports Authority spokesman. He said that apart from ] the board’s empowering act, I the Auckland, Wellington, Lyttelton and Otago harbour boards could spend up to 5500,000 on a specified single project without Ports' Authority approval. The board’s deputy chair-1 man (Captain A. R. Champion) said he preferred : not to comment until I tomorrow’s meeting, but that the board was acting well within its rights. “Even with the Ports ■Authority amendment, the 'removal of No. 6 wharf is 'one task covered by -$500,00t and the devel-; ] opment of quarter-ramp fac- j Hitlers on No. 7 wharf is an-1 'other job.” he said. Shipping interests said; I that the recent con-] gestion because of lack of] inner harbour facilities,] showed the need for more) urgency to get on with the I

> work rather than port ! versus port bickering. ] Inquiries also showed that I intervention by the Minister i would be unlikely because of [ recent requests from overseas shipping companies for more - use of the natural deep-water . facilities, at Lyttelton, ■ The port is the deepest • working port in the South i Island and the second deepest (apart from Marsden •I Point) in New Zealand. >] New types of ships alreadv off the drawing boards; dare reported to be planning] ;!their timetables on the basis; .iof deep-water ports, rather] J than tidal shallow ports. ]