THE HARBOUR BOARD RATE

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4448, 6 May 1930, Page 3

THE HARBOUR BOARD RATE

BOARD MEMBER'S RESENT CRITICISM. Mh tiers pertaining to the Harbour rate were the cause of a considerable amount of discussion at yesterday’s meeting of the Foxton Harbour Board.

The Feilding Borough Council wrote, acknowledging receipt of the Board’s communication in reference to the levying of the Harbour Board rate, stating that arrangements would be made for the collection of the rate.

The Palmerston North Borough Council wrote, asking for particulars as to receipts and expenditure find figures showing the quantities of merchandise brought through the port during the year ending March 30th, 1930. Mr J. A. Nash: I’ll move that the information bn supplied. Afr Edwards: I oppose that.

(Continuing, Mr Nash said that any local authority contributing money to the Board was entitled to a statement of receipts and expenditure. The Palmerston North Hospital Board provided a similar statement each ,ycar to its contributing local bodies. Such information enabled lliese public bodies to see how the money was being expended, and the Palmerston N. Council was quite justified in asking for the statement. Mr Edwards: It’s a mere quibble. They know what, they have to pay, and' know perfectly well what the money is required for. I am utterly disgusted with the ridiculous remarks passed at the last meeting of the Palmerston N. Council. It showed nothing short of poor polities. They talk of things they know nothing about. Air AT. E. Perrean submitted the following statement relative to the benefits derived by merchants from shipping through the local port.

FREIGHTS AFFECTING PALMERSTON NORTH. Class A goods, shipped from Lyttelton, via Wellington, to Palmerston N., cost £4 10s lid per ton; from Lyttelton via Foxton, to Palmerston X., £2 14s fid, a. saving of £1 lfis sd. Local rate: £3 19s 3d via Wellington, £2 14s fid via Foxton, a saving of £1 4s fid.

Class B: From Lyttelton, via Wellington, to Palmerston N., £4 LUs lid; via Foxton, £2 14s fid, a saving of £1 lfis sd. Local rale: £3 lfis 3d (£2 Ms fid), a saving of £1 4s 9U.

Class C: From Lyttelton, via Wellington, to Palmerston N., £3 13s Id ; via Foxton £2 Ms fid, saving 18/7. Class D: Lyttelton to Palmerston N., via Wellington. £3 3s fid; via Foxton £2 Ms fid, saving- 9s. Class E: From Lyttelton to Palmerston, via Wellington, £1 lfis 7d; via Foxton £1 8s fid, saving 11/7. Class F: Lyttelton to Palmerston N., via Wellington, £2 6s; via Foxton £1 IS/-, a saving of 18/-.

Mr Perreau said lie did not protest against the information asked for being supplied to the Council. They were entitled to it, but he understood that they received a copy of the balance-sheet each year, and lie took exception to the remarks of certain of the Palmerston North city fathers. Mr Edwards: They’re only a joke! Mr Perreau said that those Councillors pretended to voice the opinions ol' the people on the matter. He had been interested in the reports of the council meeting, and had noted a remark by Cr. Hudgins when lie asked “is there no way to get out of this?” in regard to the Harbour Board rate. That, surely, was a tine example for a councillor to set his citizens, said Mr Perreau. Mr Elliott had also said that there was no need for the port of Poxton. When that gentleman was looking for votes in connection wi th the Wellington Harbour Board election lie had said lie would support the Poston Harbour Board, which he regarded as -a “feeder” port. When questioned regarding centralisation, he had said it only referred to the big ports and had again reiterated his statement that lie would do all in his power, if elected, to support the smaller ports. It was very peculiar that he had changed his mind so soon. Continuing, Mr Perreau said that 5,000 tons of cargo had been brought through the port of Poxton last, year, and 75 per cent, of that had 1 for Palmerston North. The saving to Palmerston N.—was very considerable. By shipping through the local port the saving to Palmerston N. merchants amounted to £1 -Is Od per ton. During the six .months, jtf this year’s operations a sum of £4,050 had been saved, and yet there was a quibble from Palmerston N. about the payment of the interest and sinking fund. Mr W. E. Barber: At a, bud period, too. Continuing, Mr Perreau said that the publicity given the remarks made at the Palmerston N. Borough Council meeting was very bad for Poxton, and tended to cripple the port, and should not. be allowed to go without protest. Mr Blenldiorn (Levin) : Quito right! He said, however, that the statement of benefit submitted by Mr P-errean would clear up the position considerably. He recommended that this, as well as the details asked for, be supplied to the Palmerston N. Borough Council., and in future be forwarded annually. Boroughs were all feeling the burdens severely now, and the Board should he careful not to have any misunderstandings or misconceptions on the matter of contributions.

Mr Edwards: The Palmerston N. Borough Council has been supplied with copies of the balance-

sheet, and it has a representative on llie Board.

Air Nash ascertained the fact that llie Palmerston N. Borough Council had not yet received a copy of last year’s balance-sheet, which was not yet audited. “You’ve got no right to say that I’m supposed to supply the information,” ho said. Air Edwards at this stage made a personal reference to Cr. Hudgins of the Palmerston X. Borough Council which caused Air Nash In rise lo a point of order. “We have always been opponents,” said Air Nash, “hut 1 object to Air Hodgins being spoken of like that, and mu si ask Air Edwards to withdraw that remark.” Afr Edwards did Ibis, and continuing said that the remarks passed al the Council meeting had done incalculable harm lo the port. Board members were doing their best lo keep down (he freight charges, and yet stupid and loose statements were made, and there was no knowing the amount of injury that was being done. “The Palmerston North Borough Council,” lie concluded, “is looked 011 ns a joke.” Mr Blenkhorn: II is (lie Board’s duty to point out the benefit accruing from shipping through the port, lie fell sure that the Palmerston N. Councillors were a reasonable body of men, and that were the figures submitted by Mr Perreau placed before them they would adopt a very different, attitude towards the Board and its work. Air Nash said the Palmerston N. Borough Council’s letter was quite justifiable. If the Board was making a levy it had a right to send out a copy of its receipts and expenditure. One thing he wanted to impress on members, and that was that when the late chairman of the Harbour Board went through the district endeavouring to form the Board he had said that if the people supported llie proposal they would never he called upon to pay the rate.

Mr Perreau: They don't support 1 he port as they should. Mr Nash said lie was talking nhont (he loan proposal, and what the late chairman had said. Mr Edwards: it doesn’t matter what a chairman says. AL' Nash: T’m afraid you’re biased.

Mr Nash reiterated his remark that the Palmerston N. Borough Council was entitled to ask for the informal ion it did, and if the Board was going to make any further levies care should he taken In see that the eonlrihiiting authorities he with all information whi<'h might interest them. Afr Edwards: Hear! Hear!

The Chairman endorsed Mr Nash’s remarks in reference to the supply of information, |>ul he said lie did not think (lie remarks'of the Councillors justified. Individual members of the Board were doing all they could for the port, and Palmerston North was receiving more benefit (linn any other part of the district. He resented the remarks made, but agreed that they should have been supplied with the information asked for.

Tf was decided lo supply tho information asked for, together with a copy of Mr Pcvroan’s statement, those details in future to be supplied annually to all contributing bodies.