THE HARBOUR SCHEME.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4550, 13 April 1923, Page 3

THE HARBOUR SCHEME.

TOUR OF DELEGATION. NETHERTON. Sixteen men were present on Tuesday evening at Nethertpn to hear the Thames Harbour Board delegation. My T. Vowles was elected chairman. The addresses were on the lines of those previously reported. When question time came Mr Harris said, in reply to Mr Whisker, that ‘l7 years ago £lO,OOO had been borrowed for harbour improvements. The sinking fund had so reduced it that at present it stood at less than £5OOO. After paying the interest and sinking fund on that loan the Board had sufficient revenue to pay interest, and 'sinking fund on £40,000. The Auckland Harbour Board had until recently charged s a harbour improvement tax, but now this was collected as wharfages. Mr J. Reid said he could not see the similarity between the prospects of the Thames and New Plymouth harbours. - Mr Danby replied that the same class of land was not immediately behind Themes, but pointed out that anplace this side of Taupiri was nearer Thames by rail than Auckland. Even if the port did not serve the district f6r exports it would for imports. Mr Harris remarked that freights from Thames would probably be halved owing to the opposition that was bound to start. Mr Reid pointed out that the Pae-ron-Pokeno railway would make the distance to Auckland very much shorter. He also pointed cut that the dairy co?npany would send its produce to the port from which it could be shipped quickest, and stated that recently it had been considered whether it would pay to send produce by rail to Wellington to catch an early boat. The .company would only send to Thames, when there was a ship available, and that would only be "once in a blue moon.” .He contended that the expnediture on. the harbour was not warranted. 1 In reply tp Mr Vowles, Mr Harris said that at no time had he said that the Board should take control of the Wnilreu River and charge wharfage. He considered that the future policy of the Board should be river iinprove- . ment. The rivers mus_t be used to feed the port. If ever the Board did

take over the wharves on the rivers ' tt would have to make a charge some way to pay for maintenance. The present port area only included the wharves already controlled, and when the loan was carried the port area would still be the same. Mr S. J. Laughlin said that he had only attended the meeting out of courtesy, and had made up his mind not ,to ask questions. Nevertheless, he would like Mr Harris’ to say whether it was increased shipping—bar the poles ,at Kpp.u—or increased taxation that had put the Board in its present financial position. -Mr Harris said it was. increased ..revenue —wharfage dues and port charges, including the harbour improvemejut tax. A very great deal of credit was due to the clerk for the manner in Which the charges had been collected. ' Mr Laughlin said that the river served two purposes. It was sary for drainage purposes to improve the i river, and this would make i' better for navigation. " The settlers would soon have to pay a’very heavy tax for river improvements. Mr Whisker said that the harbour scheme was ten years ahead of its .time. Good roads and' a water supply, were needed first. Mr Harris replied that roads, water supply, and harbour were all necessary. After a little irrelevant discussion Mr T. Vowles moved a vote of thanks to the delegation for the address. This was seconded by Mr J. Harms, and carried by acclamation.

. TURUA. There was an attendance of about sixty at Turua on Wednesday evening to hear the Thames Harbour Board delegation. Mr R. W. Bagnall abiy fulfilled the position of chairman. The addresses given were on the lines of those at other places, but with slight variations to meet the altered conditions at Turua.

In the course of his address M*' Adams said that a rpevious board had considered a scheme for making a poit at Kopu. They had not consulted any engineers, but had agreed upon a scheme including a reinforced concrete wharf at Kopu for £24,000 and improvement of all the rivers for £40,000. Then Mr Blair Mason was called upon to report. The Board thought that he would support, the river port, and some of them could not reconcile the idea of abandoning it in favour of the present site, as he recommended. Mr Blair Mason hail special facilities for judging, and could compare up-to-date plans with those forty- years old. In discussing the rating aspect. Mr E. N. Miller said that the liability of the Turua Town Board area was £23, but as the finances of the Harbom Board already permitted them to pay interest and sinking fund on £40,000 they would only have to meet interest on £20,000, *so Turua’s liability would be £8 a year. This would amount to Is lid per ratepayer per annum, or 6d per head of population

per annum. In reply to Mr S. Bagnall, Mr Adams, the Board’s engineer,, said that among the people who objected to ' the scheme were those who thought the port should be at Tararu. Mr Blair Mason had said that it would be cheaper to make the walls in shallow water and dredge the mud away, and he selected the present site owing to the existing lay-out of the roads, etc. The present site was the handiest possible to the railway and the source of metal supply. Mr Rogers asked why it was not possible to establish phosphate grinding works..at Kopu. A big vessel had recently discharged poles there, and vessels with phosphate rock could also berth. Mr Adams replied that It was a matter of the depth of water at the river mouth. Mr Blair Mason had said that to make such a chanhel as

a previous board had proposed for £4OOO . would cost £39/489, and the channel would require constant dredging. Mr. D. G. McMillan asked why, if the delegation was so confident of the scheme, it did not at present advocate the major scheme, costing £275,000. Mr Harris said that when the ratepayers were prepared to go on with the major scheme not a moment would be lost. Tn reply to Mr S. Bagnall, Mr Harris said that shipowners had not been asked to include Thames in their itinerary. There would be no need to ask them. Mr Madgwick pointed out that the bulk of the dairy produce from Southern Taranaki went via Patea to Wellington, and was not shipped Home from Wanganui or New Plymouth. He asked the chairman to read a communication from the Patea Harbour Board to the effect that the produce from 19 factories, situated between Wanganui and New Plymouth, was shipped to Wellington to get better shipping facilities. Mr Harris read a communication from the Wanganui Harbour Board to the effect that Home boats preferred, rather than calling at Wanganui, to pay the freight for shipment of produce by coastal boats. Mr Madgwick said'that the N.Z. Dairy Co. had announced that iwould not ship through Thames. Mr Harris replied that the farmers were the bosses of the company, and if it could be shown that it would cost less, they would demand that the Thames port be used. In reply to Mr Bennett, Mr Harris said that the Turua wharf had been built out of revenue. The Board would be pleased to show a profit, as then it could reduce the wharfage rates. Mr Hallyburton Johnstone pointed out that Turua had agreed to pay is harbour improvement . rate for the wharf that had been built.

- Mr Scott asked if anybody outside the Thames Borough had asked for the harbour.

Mr Harris replied hi the negative, and sa’id that the policy of the BoSrit was to provide a port for the districtMr J. Bennett pointed oat that it was cheaper to ship to Auckland than Thames, and asked why Turua should pay a bigger rate than Paeroa or Waihi, as they had less peed of the harbour. Mr Miller said that the Act provided that when an area was cut out of a county it took the same rate as that county. Mr Harris said that there was a clause in the Harbour Board Act pel - mitting the alteration. of the rate, and .he was prepared to bring the question before the Board. Mr Sutton said that in the event of all the dairy produce from the Thames and Plains counties going to Thames it would be on a level with New Plymouth and Wanganui, which places only got a clearance every three months. Mr , Harris pointed out that eight overseas vessels had been to New Plymouth in six weeks. Mr McMillan asked why three members of the Board were opposed to the scheme. Mr Harris said he would sooner not answer the question, as he did not like criticising fellow members. The engineering aspect caused a difference of opinion. Tn reply to Mr Gardiner Mr Harris said that Home boats did not come at present because they could not be lightered, as Thames was at present a tidal port. A vote of thanks was proposed by Mr P. Henry, who said the delegation had put forth a good argument, and one that they would consider well. The motion was seconded by Mr W. Elvin and carried by acclamation. In replying Mr Harris said he was very pleased with the fair hearing they had received, and were very grateiul.