Harbour Costs: Who Pays the Piper?

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 160, 24 July 1937, Page 3

Harbour Costs: Who Pays the Piper?

FARMER.

Sir, — Speaking as a mernber of the farming community who* will finally have to foot the bill for the Napier harbour, I th'Lnk that the time is oppor tune.to state, through your paper, that more information is required. from the chairman of the Harbour Board. If Mr. Geddis now finds that he was misled by accountants and that Dame Nature is a stubboru creature, eurely he owes a duty 'to the ratepayers of the district to tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" and leave it to the public's commonsense to help him out of the difiieulties dn which his academic advisors have landed him. Failing this franknesa, he must take the consequencea arising from the misleqding data on which he based his toooptimistic programme for the solving of Hawke's Bay's seaborne transport problem. , In order to be fair to -Mr. Geddis, it must be stated that the Mayor of Hastings, a one-time staunch supporter- of the Inner Harbour, in his wisdom, or otherwise, thought, on the eve of tlie harbour poll, that the time was opportune to alter his opinions. As a private citizen he was quite entitled to do so, but holding the position of Mayor of Hastings " and chairman of the Education Board it was impossible for 'the general public to separate the man from his dual position. Therefore Mr. Maddison cannot escape from the result of the policy he backed. In support of this, allow me to quqto an extract from a statement of Mr. Maddison 's published ib the* Tribune, of July 18. 1934:— "I have incidentally di'scussed it (the harbour proposal) in every detail with one of the accountants, who submittcd the financial statement to tlie Harbour Board, and I have come to the conclusion that the proposals can provide a substantial saving to the people ' of Hawke 's Bay." In view of recent developments with regard to a harbour rate being struck,

and authority being sought to borrow an unnamed sum of money 'without the sanction of the ratepayers, surely some further information should be given to the general public with regard to the ultimate cost of the Outer Harbour. Eumours are rife that such au able man as Mr. Maddison would not have changed his allegiance unless he was satisfied that his home town would benefit. It rests with Mr. Maddison to justify his action in supporting the Outer Harbour scheme by ehowing in what manner Hastings benefited. Costs to date ihdieate that the Outer Harbour, when completed, will be too dear for the farmers to use. It is reasonable to assume that Mr. Maddison 's backing of the Outer Harbour was the vital factor in convincing the ratepayers that it was economically eound. . It now rests with him and Mr. Geddis to prove to the public that they were men of sound judgment. Failing frankness on their part, it may be necessary to ask for a Royal Commissicm composed of men of the same calibre as the Hospital Commission to bring the facts before the people who have to foot the bill. — Yours, etc.,

Hastings, July 22, 1937.