THE HARBOUR SCHEME.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4536, 7 March 1923, Page 4

THE HARBOUR SCHEME.

DISCUSSION AT TURUA. DEPUTATION FROM TOWN BOARD. Mr C. Scott, as the spokesman of a deputation from the Town Board which waited on the Turua Ratepayers’ Association meeting on Monday, said that the Board had appointed a delegate to represent the town at a meeting of opppsers to, the Thames Harbour Scheme to be held in Moirlnsville on the 7th Inst., and the Board would like the Association to do the same. Mr Madgwick said he had been in communication with Mr Harris, of the Thames Harbour Board. Mr Harris said that he would like the Turua people, to hear the Harbour Board’s side of the question before taking any action. Mr McMillan said that the delegation from Thames would be in Turua on April 10’, and he did not see why Turua, it they were antagonistic to the proposal, should wait. The people of the Plains were opposed to the scheme, as they did not see the necessity of a harbour at Thames costing from £30,000 to £50,000 when they could get a better river service at little expense. The scheme would necessitate a three-farthings ra?e being struck on the capital value of the land on the Plains. He thought an attack on the scheme should be commenced at once, for they were acting, not on their personal opinions, but as a, body. Where would Home steamers get a back load if they brought a load to Thames? It was well known, he said, how much produce was produced locally. Mr Bagnall said he was opposed to the scheme, and thought that the association should start fighting against it right away. Mr Willey said the oratory of the Thames delegation would make white appear black, and would carry much weight, Personally, he thought, that a scheme to make a harbour within 37 miles of another harbour was ridiculous. The idea of one man one vote was furthered by the Harbour Board to overcome the farmers’ votes, and farmers should organise to oppose the scheme. Tire Harbour Board proposed spending £60,000’ to make a channel to Thames wharf, whereas by spending one-tenth of the money more water could be made available at Kopu. The delegation would talk till they had a resolution in their favour. Mr Walters, chairman of the Piako County Council, had stated that the Jiauraki Plains were fpr the scheme, but he thought they'were 3 to 1 against it, and he suggested that the ratepayers should strongly oppose it. Mr Baker and Mr A. Rodgers said they were definitely opposed, and , it would be a bad day for the Plains when the scheme was carried. They thought that only lack of interest' would carry the schemp, and delegates should go to Morrinsville to organise an opposition. Mr McMillan supported Mr Willey’s remarks in regard to the delegation convincing people that white was black, and quoted the case of the Morrinsville people, who sent a deputation opposing the scheme to Wellington, and' now had passed a motion supporting the scheme. Members were unanimous in opposing the scheme, (and arguments put forth, were that produce would still have to be shipped to Auckland, as it could not be stored and would have to go through the grading store at Auckland, or if cool stores were erected at Thames the farmers would not permijt their produce to wait months for a Home boat. The whole of the produce for a year would not fill a ship. No man would isay that - the scheme to make Thames a harbour would not be a success, but there was no necessity for it. Mr Rogers said that 90 per cent, of the exports from the area was dairy produce, and \ the N.Z. Dairy Co., which controlled 90 per cent, of the dairy produce, said that they-would not ship any of it through Thames. One of the arguments Put forth by the shipping company was that the

high cost of freights was due to the number of ports around the coast, and that one trip a year was lost by calling at every small port. The essence of the dairy business was quick shipment, and no company would pay storage until a ship came to Thames. Mr Willey said that the scheme was not the Harbour Board’s scheme, but a Chamber of Commerce scheme, and it was engineered and paid for by the Chamber of Commerce. He did not wish to decry Mr Blair Mason, -.bult the Harbour Board should get advice from outside, as every man was liable t to make mistakes. Mr Luke said that a box of butter cost 4d to ship to Auckland. He asked if it would cost less io ship to Thames. Mr Gardiner said one instance was a case from Auckland on which no wharfage was charged at Auckland and Is 6d was charged at Turua. On being returned empty . the Turua wharfage was Is 6d and the Auckland charge Bd. The Turua wharf was controlled by the Thames Harbour’Board. In Mr Mason’s report he stated that the silt in the harbour came down the Waihou River from the hills and the mines, but Mr Adams said it was from the Kauaeranga Creek, and the charts prove that this is so, .and that the current from the Waihou diverted this silt towards Thames,. Mr McMillan said that the association could talk all night pointing out, faults in the scheme, and as there was no discordant voice raised ne suggested that a delegate should be appointed to go to Morrinsville. It was deieded that Mr McMillan represent the association. It was stated that the Hauraki Plains County Council would have to find one-third of the cost of the scheme owing to the valuation of the county compared with other counties. Mr Willey suggested that a candidate be nominated in opposition to Mr Harris, who represented the Plains and supported the scheme. Mr McMillan said that as the opposition to the scheme was general he suggested that Mr Willey be asked to stand. Mr. Willey declined owing to private reasons. It was decided to discuss the matter at a public meeting, to be called at some date after the Morrinsville meeting.