THE HARBOUR SCHEME.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4553, 20 April 1923, Page 2

THE HARBOUR SCHEME.

ADDRESS BY OPPONENTS. Representatives of the organised opposition to the Thames Harbour Board’s scheme of harbour improvements addressed a meeting in the Central Theatre on Tuesday evening. The Mayor, Mr P. E. Brenan, was in the chair, and the speakers were Mr R. Coulter (Mayor of Te Aroha and a member of the Harbour Board), Mr J. . Price (Matamata), and Mr W. Clement Cargill (Morrinsville). Mr Coulter was the first speaker, and said that the proposed scheme would be quite all right for Thames, and no one would object if the Thames people would pay for it, but the other districts would object to, as it. were, signing a promissory note for an unlimited amount, so that Thames could have a harbour. The Harbour Board had iiad various schemes, and at one time had published a booklet, “The Hauraki Harbour Scheme ; its Possibilities and Cost.” Later they had found that their figures would not stand up against argument, so had repudiated it. Their next scheme was for the larger sum of £270,000. However. they decided that there was no chance of getting this amount sanctioned by the ratepayers, so had come forward with a smaller amount. They dared not. submit their larger scheme, so had put forth the smaller one as a bait. It would be the thin end of the wedge, and there would be no liimt to the amount, of money required. What the Board had stated would require £275,000 had been estimated to cost £750;000. It would have been thought that the Board would have had a thorough investigation made before going in for a scheme of this size, but. no; they had engaged an engineer to make a scheme that would, be acceptable to the people.

EXPERT ADVICE. It, had been stated that the Board had every faith in its engineer ; so it could have, but that did not mean that, their objections were wrong or that the engineer was right. The best of engineers made mistakes, and the objectors had asked that other engineers be consulted also. They had asked the Board to insist that outside evidence be procured. The Board had refused, stating that it would mean sending t.o America, or some other country. Yet it had been stated before the Parliamentary Commission that the objectors had brought no evidence against the scheme. How could they ? Tiie proposers had the Harbour Board funds to draw on, while the objectors had to pay their own expenses. Evidence could Lave been secured from Australia —the Board would not, secure it because it might be against the scheme. Mr C. Y. O’Connor, one of the leading engineers in Australasia, when asked if it was possible to make a harbour al Thames, had said r “Yes, if you have patience enough/and money enough, but-if you have brains enough you won’t attempt it.”

METHODS OF THE BOARD. When the report on the scheme was presented to the Board the chairman said that as it was so long he would not. read it, but he there and then asked the meeting to confirm the scheme. Mr Cou’ter said he asked that a copy of the report and the plan be circulated among members, so that, they could peruse it, and this was agreed to. but his copy only arrived at 10.30 o’clock on the morning of the next meeting. RAILWAY FREIGHTS. The Harbour Board say that the scheme woula mean a big saving in railway freights, and that it would pay farmers to take a certain amount of risk. If the Thames harbour was seriously competing with the railway business the railway freights would be adjusted so that the railway freights would cost the same to Thames as to Auckland. The Rail wav Department adjusted the freights according to conditions.

SCOPE OF SCHEME. The £60.000 would provide for intercolonial shipping only, yet the Board claimed that this would cater for the farmers’ benzine, manures, etc. Do they know where these goods come from ? The Board argued that congestion at Auckland would be relieved, yet the scheme only provided berthage for one vessel. The Board’s argument about strikes was also poorfor if there was a watersiders’ strike in Auckland there would also be one at Thames. There was no reason for enlarging the harbour district, as it was not required as security for the £6OOO loan. The Thames area was sufficient for that, but the Board knew the chances of failure and were afraid to accept the sole responsibility of a risky proposition. The Board thereby gave themselves away, and proved that they did not have faith in the scheme. Mr Coulter said that he had asked the Board to go ahead with the £60,000 scheme with the present area, and if it proved a success the up-country would come in and help with the larger scheme. THE ELECTION DATE.

The speaker salso referred to the election date. The Board had very definitely refused to make the date a convenient one to the farmers by holding the poll when County elections were being held. This had been refused. Why ? Simply because the farmers were opposed tp the scheme, whereas the people of Thames were a block vote in favour and had to go no distance to the booth. The townspeople could vote at any time, but the farmer could not. . get away any day, and might have to go miles to record his vote.

PRESENT WATERWAYS. Paeroa and Te Aroha were not. concerned in the harbour, but were vitally interested in the Waihou River, as they preferred to ship to Auckland rather than to rail. Years ago vessels went up to Matamata. and there was no reason, if money was spent in dredging and clearing the stream, why communicalt.ion should not again be established. Next session the report of the Rivers Commission would be discussed, and the farmers desired to reserve their rating power for, that.

POWER BOARD POLES. Mr Price spoke of the landing of electric light poles at Kopu by the Thames Valley Power Board. The Board told the Commission that the saving was over £3OO on 1034 poles. At the very next meeting. of the Power Board the saving vas given as approximately £l4O. Simply juggling. This was allowing 7s 6d i pole tor unloading at Auckland. At Kopu the Board’s own men unloaded the poles at a cost of 5s each. Bur Kopu was not Thames. If a harbour was established at Thames, did anr> body think the watersiders would unload the poles for less money than the watersiders at Auckland ? The wharfage at. Kopu was B%d a ton; at Thames 2s 6d a ton was the porposed charge. If they added the increased cost of handling and wharfage the polos would have cost £173 more to land at Thames than at Kopu,, or £33 more at Kopu than it. would at- Auckland, all things equal. FOOLING THE RATEPAYERS. Coming to the subject of the loan proposal Mr Price said the £60,000 was only throwing dust in the eyes oc the ratepayers. The Board wanted a big scheme. If the deep sea harbour was a good scheme, if the figures were correct, if the project, was economically sound, why put the ratepayers to the expense of several polls when one should suffice ? It was a case of “weak knees” with the Board. The Board thought that when they had spent what the ratepayers had sanctioned “you will have to grant further loans or you wlil lose what you have paid.” They were frying to fool the ratepayers. He predicted that the loan expenditure would not. stop at £275.000.

DREDGING. Commenting on the harbour scheme Mr Price said that if it was necessary to wall the basin it would be necessarv to wall the channel. He spoke of his knowledge of the situation at Thames. - He ridiculed the statements about the “negligible” quantity jf dredging From 1917 to 1921 it had cost the Board in dredging and maintenance £3124. Mr Blair Mason admitted that 550,000 cubic ytlrds of silt, had come down the Waihou River every year for the last 40* years, and that the gulf had filled in a particular part to 615 ft. in that period, and that the deposit would increase as the country was brought in. And then ratepayers were expected to be so credulous as to believe that the cost of dredging with all this silt coming into the gulf would be negligible. He mentioned that ocean going vessels could not proceed from Auckland to Thames without, going around North Head and come up fiom Coromandel. He prophesied that where they proposed to put the harbour would later be high and dry, and cows would be grazing on it. RIVER COMPETITION.

If it were possible to construct a harbour at Thames, said Mr Price, Lt was not going to shut up the firms in Auckland or close the rivers from trading direct with Auckland, as they were doing to-day. The Board might build a harbour, but they could not compel the people to trade through Thames. Last year the trade between the Piako River and Auckland was 5700 tons, and with Thames 40 tons, 50 000 ft of timber, 1000 posts, and 10,000 bricks. From Turua to Auckland the charges were 4d for a box of butter and lid for a crate of cheese. Could it be taken to Thames and allow for the extra handling for that money ?

CENTRALISATION. In a few years Auckland would be fed by coastal boats as far away as Gisborne. If the liners. could discharge and load direct from Auckland there would be a saving of 40 days m the Dominion. At £5OO a day ther.; would be a saving of £20,000. It would only be through centralisation and lessening the number of the ports of call tha the farmer could hope for a reduction in shipping freights. £ll,OOO A YEAR LOSS. Speaking on the financial aspect of a deep sea harbour Mr Price quoted numerous figures in support of his Contention that a port a* Thames could not pay. Taking the number of cows in the Board’s district at 111 - 621. at 2501 b of butter per cow, : there would be a total of 12,458 tons of butter. This at 2s 6d a ton wharfag? would produce £1557 ss. Treble this amount to allow for increase of produce and imports and a total revenue of £4671 15s was presented. Add to this the revenue from reclaimed land at £5OOO and there was 3 total ’»f £9671 15s revenue. On the expenditure side interest and- sinking fund on £275,000 would come to £17,875, and other expenditure would make a total of £30.675, or leave a loss of £21,033 <ss. The other side would claim a saving on freight. Giving the Board the benefit of any doubt, and assuming that it had all the advantages for St.oring and handling and a regular clearance for overseas vessels, and the following were the highest possible figures : Allowing that 4150 tons went from Morrinsville and Matamata districts at. a saving of Ils per ton, the total would be £2282 5s ; taking 5000 tons from Te Aroha and Ohinemuri at Us, £2750. There could not. be any saving to Thames and Hauraki Plains districts. Allow the same saving oh imports as exports and there would be a maximum total saving of £10,064 10s. Deduct this from the gross loss and the district would have to find £10,938 a year deficit. Speaikng of the harbour rate it was proposed to strike, and the Harbour Board’s contention that none of it would need tp be paid, Mr Price said that they would pay the full rate struck, and in Paeroa 10s 5d per £lOOO capital value and in the Ohinemuri County £2 Is Bd.

THE QUARRY. Mr Blair Mason had said that the dredging of the channel 12ft deep was going to cost £34,300. Mr Adams gave the figure at £BB6l for the chahncl 6ft deep, swinging basin and berthage 9ft deeper than the channel. A 6ft channel would cost approximately £6OOO, but to give another 6ft would cost £28,300. Mr Price warmly criticised the specifications and estimates, contending that things, no matter how small, should have been gone into.

It was i ecommended to make ah arr rangement with the Thames Borough Council to get the spawls from the council quarry, the Harbour Board to contribute £2200, half the share of the quarry tram. This would work out at 2s 2d a yard royalty. A good many local bodies would like a royalty at that rate. How could any engineer give a true estimate on the assumption of certain arrangements being made ’ AU arrangements should have been completed before the scheme as proposed was adopted. Why was the Commission told that the Harbour Board had a quarry if the Thames Borough Council’s quarry was to be used ? The Board’s delegation had not brought forward a solid argument of finance. They had given false figures right through the piece. There was not another harbonr within the world which was within 40 miles of another which had been a payable proposition. Mr Pi ice concluded a speech full of statistical information and figures with a strong appeal to turn the proposal down in the best interests of the district and the Dominion until a thorough investigation had been made and they were shown that it was going to be a paying proposition and in the true interests of the producers. He was born and bred in Thames, and he wished to make it clear that he had no grudge against the town, but he had a grudge against the wild expenditure of public money. DELEGATION’S FIGURES. Mr Cargill said he wished to deal with a few of the figures given by the Harbour Board’s delegation. The delegation had quoted New Plymouth and thought that perhaps nobody else knew anything about Taranaki. New Plymouth was not the port of Taranaki, as was claimed. Taranaki was divided into two parts. New Plymouth served North Taranaki. The southern boundary line was 38 miles from New Plymouth. There was a port of Patea, the back entrance of Taranaki. New Plymouth exported in 1922 1.852,211 tons and Patea 1,772- . 191 tons. In February of this year New Plymouth received into cool store 47.261 cwt of butter and cheese, and Patea 43,355 cwt. So Patea was not a small port. Yet the delegation never mentioned Paitea. Why 1 Because tjiey .wanted, people to -infep-~ that~New Plymouth exported all the produce from Taranaki. The delegation asked the people to believe that the condiitpns of New Plymouth and Thames were similar. They were very different. Before the New Plymouth deep sea harbour seneme was thought of New Plymouth had cool stores, and the Corinna took the dairy' produce to Wellington. Easic slag had. been brough direct to New Plymouth before the scheme was commenced New Plymouth started with all the advantages of a big export trade, and also with another, that of distance. It was over 200 miles from Wellington. Thames was only 42 miles from Auckland. How could it be said that the conditions were similar ?

QUESTIONS.

Several questions were asked, particulars of which will appear in our issue on Monday.