THE FOXTON WHARF.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 922, 24 November 1910, Page 4

THE FOXTON WHARF.

The following is Messrs Edward Newman M.P. and the Hon. J. A. Millar's evidence given before the Railway Committee in support of the petition re purchase of the local wharf; —

Evidence of Kdward Newman, M.P. —“I do not think it is necessary to add very much to what Mr Hennessy and Mr Wilson have said. Of course, I quite understand the position taken up by the Hon. Mr Millar. He is looking after the interests of the Railway Department, and he considers it his duty to oppose anything that is against the interests of his Department. I desire to refer to the position of the Foxton Harbour Board. There can be no doubt — and any one listening to the evidence to-day must admit —that Foxton has been unfortunately situated in comparison with the sister ports. Thirty years ago Wanganui, Patea, Waitara, and Foxton were in the same position of having rivers with bars and no improvements. Harbour Boards had been formed under an Act. At a later date the Board at Foxton was dissolved ; the others were not, and they were fortunate in securing considerable endowments, as well as wharfages which they still retain, less per cent, for collection. It must be admitted that Foxton was not as well represented as Wanganui or Patea at that period. Judging by what happened, the representatives of Wanganui and Patea did better service for their districts than the representatives of Foxton. The matter drifted on year after year, and by-aud-by Foxton awoke to the fact that it was dropping behind in the race, and, the year before last, a Bill was brought before the blouse in charge of Mr Stevens. It was put through, but. unfortunately, the Government cut out the revenue in the shape of wharfages and adequate endowments. The present endowments are entirely inadequate ; they only bring in some ,£4OO a year—barely enough to pay salaries. I do not want to go into the whole case. You have heard it all, and very fairly stated. The position takeh up by the Board is a reasonable one. They say they were badly treated in not getting the same revenues as the other ports. Trade is increasing now, and the importance of keeping the river open is becoming greater; they require to get money to keep the river open. The Board comes to the Government and asks to be put in the same position financially as the other ports. Failing that, they ask for a sum of money to enable them to deal with the rive:, on the ground that it is unjust that one Department of the Government should make a substantial profit out of it (because it is contended that, while the cost of the wharf was only ,£7,000 or ,£B,OOO, the revenue has been over ,£20,000), while the Board has no funds to spend on necessary works. Failing this, they ask leave to buy the wharf at valuation, and they are willing to submit the price to arbitration. I cannot see that they are not taking up a very fair and reasonable position, and I hope that the Committee will ask that the petition shall receive favourable consideration from the Government, in the hope that some way will be found to do justice to the Government, the Harbour Board, and the port. There is no doubt that the port can be greatly improved. There is nothing to hinder Home-going steamers lying off and loading all sorts of goods there, and Foxton should become a good and important port if the Board only had sufficient revenue to do some improvements. It was unfortunate for Foxton that the Government changed its policy with regard to endowments. Formerly it was the custom for these Boards to get valuable endowments, but now they do not, and the Foxton Harbour Board suffered. I trust that the Government will remedy the present state of firings, and I hope that, to facilitate this, the Committee will report favourably on the petition before it.” Kvidence of the Hon. ]. A. Millar, Minister of Railways.—‘T should like to say a few words. Mr Hennessy and Mr Newman are both present, and they can say whether what I state is correct or not. I will give one or two other instances where the Department has had trouble. They are quite correct in saying that the wharves were originally granted to Patea and Wanganui, and the Harbour Boards in these places have had them ever since. Foxton was in the same position when created, but from some cause or other —I do not know why—the Government got so disgusted that the whole thing was wiped out in 1886. I want to point out that the additions that have been made to the Wanganui wharf have been made largely since it came into the hands of the Harbour Board. The wharf in Wanganui to-day and the wharf as originally built are two different things altogether. I think that the Chairman will bear me out that the wharf there has been built out of the Harbour Board’s funds outside of the wharfages. I do not want those who know Wanganui and the wharf there now to think that the present wharf was the one built by the Government, lu Patea the Harbour Board has the wharfages; but that was the original agreement. Foxtou never had them, and now, after five-and-twenty years, asks to be put in the same position as these bodies were in previously. The Government’s trouble is that there are hundreds of rivers where navigation is going on, and where Harbour Boards have been created, each of

which is asking the same thing. Personally I think it would be a good thing to take the ten million acres of Crown lands, cut them up for endowments, and then we should settle the land question lor good. The trouble between the Foxtou Harbour Board and the Department is this; They want to buy the wharf at what they consider its value to day, after allowing depreciation for thirty years. We say we are willing to sell at its value to-day. I am prepared to allow it to go to arbitration on what the wharf is producing. They want to take it on the wharf as a structure. If Mr Newman had land at ,£2 an acre, from which he had been deriving revenue for thirty years, would he now refer it to arbitration as to what he should take tor it ? I am quite prepared to refer it to arbitration on its earning-capacity. _ That is the only value you can give. That is all you can pay for land —its productive ability. Mr Newman : It might be earnpieces in six months. Witness : That will be a factor in the consideration of the price—whether there will be any cost required to do anything to it to enable it to carry on its work with safely. We know Mr Newman would not say it is not in a perfect condition. 1 know the trouble with the Harbour Board. Even if they got the wharf, they cannot make a harbour of it, because they have not got revenue then. From 1886 to 1900 or 1908, when Mr .Stevens put this Bill through, that harbour was looked after by the Marine Department, and we expended money from time to time on dredging. However, the Foxton people thought they could do better by forming a Harbour Board of their own. They got the authority which they asked for —one or two of the Items in the Bill were struck out—but they got the whole of the endowments the Marine Department had to work upon to keep the harbour. When this demand was made, the Marine Department’s Engineer was asked to visit the place and report on it. He did so, and his report was that nothing effective could be done to the river without an expenditure of at least ,£25,000, because the bar is a first consideration. They have got a nasty sand bar, and they will always have trouble unless they go in for a large work at the bar in the first instance. Then they will have to get a dredge to maintain the river, even for vessels drawing 12ft. of water. The largest customer to that wharf for coal is the Railway Department itself. The railway ships the whole of its coal to that wharf. Whenever the bar is fit to be worked, our coal goes there, and is distributed throughout the different parts of the district, so that that is Government money as well. Eet me point out what the Railway Department had to pay when they took over the wharvec There is constant friction whoever there is joint control'in working harbours. This was discovered in Nelson, and arrangements were made to take over the whole of the wharves there and work them as part of the railway. They had small private wharves there, which had been built, and to which the shipping went. They got revenue from that, and the Government had to guarantee to make up any deficiency up to ,£1,500 per annum. You will see that that is 5 per cent, on ,£30,000. We had to pay the Nelson Harbour Board to take over the wharves then existing. Mr Hennessy was perfectly honest. He said that if the positions were reversed they would get the best value they could. The trouble is that the Railway Department has got wharves all over New Zealand. There is one at Port Chalmers, which cost ,£20,000, and upon which, ten years ago, ,£IO,OOO was expended in lengthening it. If you are going to endow the Harbour Boards with the wharves or wharfages, can you in justice do it to one and refuse it to others who make the same demand ? Since it was done before, according to Mr Hennessy’s own statement, a reversal of policy has taken place. This, I think, partly because Wanganui sold pretty well the whole of the endowment it received, and since then Hokitika had to get power to sell its endowment to pay a debt of .£30,000. The Department is not working against the Harbour Board. A rumour got abroad that we were going to take away our coal. We never had the slightest intention of doing it, and we are not working in antagonism to the Harbour Board. We should be only too pleased to see them improve the harbour, but say that we should not be asked to find the money to improve it. We know that it takes a certain amount of trade now from us, but we have dealt better with it than did the old Manawatu Railway Company. They had a special low rate to take the trade away ; but when the Government took over the line they put up the rate to -classified rate,” and we know, as Mr Hennessy has said, that trade has improved there. So far from acting in a hostile manner, we have endeavoured to put trade in their road, so long as they are not a menance to the railway revenue. If they want to buy the wharf, and arbitration was fixed, it should be on the earningcapacity. If I have a property for thirty years that has been returning a fair profit, it would be sold on its earning capacity to-day, and I only ask that the Government should be dealt with in the same way. The Railway Department is the biggest business in the country, and if we had intended to cut down the Board’s revenue we should have kept to the Manawatu Company’s rates. We are trying to get rid of these

differential rates, but you will find them in every part of the world where there is water competition, to enable competition to be carried on. It was done in Invercargill twenty-five years ago, between Dunedin and Oaraaru twenty years ago, and between Timaru and Christchurch, to enable the Department to maintain some part of the trade, seeing that it had gone to the expense of constructing the line, and had to find interest on the money. It did not matter much what the Committee recommended. This is a portion of public property which can only be disposed of with the sanction of the Crown. I was quite willing, I told Mr Newman, to put a vote on the Marine estimates. I hope to be able to put on a small sum to give them some assistance to get over the particular trouble with the bar. It the Foxton people want to make a port, there is only one way of doing it get a rating district. As soon as they do that, and show a desire to put their hands in their own pockets, they can come to the Government and ask for assistance in the shape of au endowment or anything else, as long as I see the people of the district prepared to assist themselves, without asking the consolidated revenue to pay the whole lot.