TRAMWAY AFFAIRS

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 125, 28 May 1937, Page 16

TRAMWAY AFFAIRS

CHRISTCHURCH BOARD

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l note that the "Evening Post" of May 24, 1937, contains a statement made by Mr. S. G. Holland, M.P., that "In the three years that Labour had control of the Christchurch Tramway Board, the ratepayers were called upon to foot a deficiency of £73,000." The position, however, is that: When the present board took over in 1933, there were accumulated deficiencies in revenue account amounting to £20,545, and practically all. of. the reserves had been used up. The revenue position under the present board improved towards the end of the financial year, but the necessity for striking a rate to cover the deficiency was strongly evidenced. Before taking action the board appointed two outside accountants to report on the financial position, viz.: Mr. James Anderson, F.R.'A., N.Z., late City Accountant, and Mr. H. A. C. North, F.P.A., N.Z., public accountant. The report showed that a sum of £20,890 had been' obtained from reserve funds and that "the previous board, in deciding to realise on these investments, saved the undertaking from levying a rate in 1933." The report further stated that the present board had no alternative but to levy a rate in connection with the deficiencies for the years ended March 31, 1934, and March 31, 1935, and placed the deficiencies at the following amounts: —For year ended March 31, 1934, £32,143; for year ended March 31, 1935, £31,615. Total, £63,758. After lengthy consideration of the report, the present board decided to fix the rate on a lower basis than that recommended by the investigating accountants with the result that the deficiencies actually rated for were as follows: Deficiency as at March 31, 1934 £19 978; deficiency for year ended March 31, 1935, £17,594. Total, £37,572. This 'meant a reduction of £26,186 in the deficiencies to be rated for. The rate for the following year was £12,132, being a drop of £6654 on the average per annum of the previous rate. Rates levied for year ended March 31, 1936, amounted to £23,134, the increase over the preceding year being entirely due to wage increases consequent upon the restoration of cuts and reduction of hours of work.

Mr. Holland further stated: "In addition to what the Labour Administration had already extracted from the Christchurch ratepayers, the Tramway Board was this year more than £20,000 behind in its operations."

My reply to this is that the-year ended March 31, 1937, covers the introduction of the 40-hour week, etc., but more particularly it included standing charges which would not have been payable but for the transfer by the old board of large sums of depreciation moneys (£177,400) to sinking fund in the loan conversion scheme. Not only has the present Labour Board got a higher paid staff of employees, but it is winning back passengers lost by the old board; for example, the passengers carried last year by the Labour board were 19,378,447. Last full year of "Citizen" board were 16,913,075 —an increase of 2,465,372.

Finally, Labour first took control of Christchurch tramway affairs in November, 1933, and despite the rates Mr. Holland complains about, was reelected in November, 1936. Need more be stated?—l am, etc.,

GEO. MANNING. Chairman, Christchurch Tramway Board. May 26.