UNDESERVED CRITICISM

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 101, 20 July 1927, Page 14

UNDESERVED CRITICISM

HARBOUR BOARD AND HOBSON BAY

ATTITUDE OF CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSED

“ THE Harbour Board has incurred a great deal of un--1 deserved adverse criticism in connection with Hobson Bay, and has been blamed for things which it has not done, or even suggested, regarding the commercialisation of that area.”

These remarks prefaced a statement made to the Auckland Harbour Board yesterday by the chainrman, Mr. H. R. Mackenzie, on a subject which is occupying the attention of many Aucklanders at present. During the discussion which followed the reading of the statement some members stated that they were of opinion that the Auckland City Council was trying to get something for nothing. Mr. Mackenzie, in enlarging on the remarks he made to a deputation yesterday said: The board’s scheme of harbour works does not include any reclamation in Hobson Bay. It has, in fact, enough work on its hands for the next 25 years without worrying about the reclamation of that area. My remarks on the subject, which have been quoted against me, expressed only my own opinion and referred not to any immediate proposals, but to the necessity of conserving the for the future needs of the board and the public. Captain Daidy, the first chairman of the board, in 1871 had the bed of Hobson Bay included in the board’s endowments, and presumably he and others who were responsible for that act had in mind the future of the port when the area would be required for public purposes. It is included in the endowments which are mortgaged to the bondholders of the board as security for its loans. GUARDIAN OF THE PEOPLE As a matter of fact, the Harbour Board has been the guardian of the people of Auckland in the conservation of the bay. But for its vigilance the area inside the railway embankment might not have been conserved. It was the board of 1919 that first raised the question of openings in the embankment and insisted on bridges being provided so that there should be as little interference as possible with the ingress and egress of the tide. The board claims to be the most widely representative local body in Auckland Province, as its members represent not only the shipping and commercial interests of the port, but Auckland City and suburbs and the counties of Waitemata, Franklin, Manukau, Waikato, Waipa and Raglan. It can therefore be trusted to look after the interests of the people of the province. Proof of this is found in the fact

that the board has just agreed to give the Auckland City Council a lease for 100 years of the bed of Orakei Basin (136 acres), and has offered to lease to it for recreation purposes an area of 76 acres inside the sewer boundary. “SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.” Mr. Campbell Johnston spoke of the way in which the newspapers had taken up the subject of Hobson Bay. He was of opinion that the City Council was trying to get something for nothing. If it wanted to do anything in the way of obtaining playing areas and a park there was plenty of ground beyond the city. The City Council in particular had not looked at the question in a broad way. It was necessary for the board to watch the harbour in the interests of shipping and future development. Mr. G. R. Hutchinson said that the board had been most generous to the City Council. One instance was the fact that the council paid £SOO a year for 37 acres of land at Freeman’s Bay. For the time being the board was the trustee for the residents of Auckland, some of whom hardly seemed to realise the amount of money it had cost to obtain the present harbour. If the City Council came forward with a scheme of its own no doubt the Harbour Board would meet it, but to ask for an area without rental was absurd. Mr. J. B. Johnston said that unintentionally perhaps the board had been placed in an unfair position before the public. The members of the board were just as aesthetic and anxious for the beauty and preservation of the foreshore as those who were indulging in criticism of the Harbour Board. The board favoured a scheme of beautification, and in getting the engineers to make a report it was doing its best. Up to the present the board had been waiting for representations from the people who were concerned in the agitation, after which the subject would be discussed. The board must be faithful to its trust and the requirements of the harbour must be provided for. The chairman remarked that when the comments of various local bodies were available the whole question would be discussed and the board would give its decision. Mr. E. W. Inder said that the remarks which had been made originally by the chairman had been misinterpreted.