CENTRALISATION

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 71, 26 April 1929, Page 6

CENTRALISATION

The svheuie Wellinglon is organ- j ising ancl working for is that all | thc experts and imports for the j Xorth Island shall be conccntrated j in Auckland and Wellington. J I'nder this the lattcr would get all j the trade of Hawke's Bay, and j probably that of Gisborne, all! north of that going to Auckland, j Our concern lnis to . do with j Hawke's Bay onlv at the moment. If cenlralisation comes, as it will conie unlcss the Harbour Board awakes to its dutv to the district, an immense injtiry will be done to the province. The ehairman of the Harbour Board has light-heartedlv declaved that he has not "a scvap of fear" of centralisation. This j does not vncan that he fails to recognise the evil results which woukl accrue, but that he does not fear centralisation can comc. We hope centralisation will not come, but corae it will unlcss the hoavd adopts a wiser policy, a policy that will not leave the district at the raercy of the lighters. Ha sound harbour scheme does not cnd the lighters, the lighters will cnd thc harbour sehemc. If centralisation comes a pcnalising sliipping freight rate will be imposed upon sea-going boats iaking produce abroad from Napier or bringing in imports. At present thcro is a flat rate for all ports. To raisc the rate for Napier and leave Wellington as at present, the tendcncy would be for the small vessels loading in and out of liere to run between here and W ellinglon instead of loading andunloading in the roadstead. This is what Wellington is scheming and planning for, and it will come unless proper wharfagc accommodation is provided at the Breakwater. It is impossible that the thrce freozing companies — to take only the mcat export side of our trade — should go on indefinitcly labouring under thc burdens imposed upon tliem bv ihe reactionary policy of the board as at present constitut- \ ed. Anv inerease of sliipping i freights upon vessels loading or J unloading in the roadstead would I mcan Wellington as our port with j coast al vessels to take away goods sent out and bving to us goods imported. To assume iliat a port like Napier, which ranks fourth in New Zealand for experts, and fifth in regard to both in and out trade laken togethov, should be cxposed to such a visk is an outrage. The first stcp the board should take to place sucli a liappening out of the possibilities is to provide better wharfage accommodation at the Breakwater. The second is to proclaim a piolicv of completing tho Breakwater at ihe earliest practicable date. Of course the addition of anothcr wharf at the Breakwater is the most urgent nced, for one vcry important rcason — it would provide the three frcezing companies with facilities for loading their meat over 1, wharf. Tliis could be done out of revenue. To complete the Breakwater is another matter. Binancial conditions have to be considercd. Let us do in relation to this problem what we did when surveying and criticising our revenue resouvces, namelv, take a broad goneral view and dcal in safe round figures. We may assume, and we put it fonvard as a reasonably sound and accurate assumption, that the Breakwater harbour can be completed according to a plan approved by eareful and expericnced liarbour engineers for a surn of C 1.10,000. We are eareful here not to ehoose tlie lowest figures put fonvard, but to be conservative and prudent. Let us assume 7 A per cent on that sum as the annual charge for interest and sinking fund; we may reasonably expect that, on to-day 's indications. That would involve an annual additional charge again st our revenue of £33,750 and no board or other liarbour advocate would put such a scheme fonvard unless it wcre coupled with an indication of the source of earnings to pav that annual charge. (Never again 1 must we trust ihe propliets who inviled us to embark on a harbour scheme that was io be paid for by dips out of a luckv bag). Now, fo what may Hawke's Bay look | for the revenue to meet this an5 nual charge on the cost of its ulti- | mate harbour scheme? ! Tlie answer is found, not in the i mere magnification or multiplica- | fion of any figures at present in ! our revenue account, or' in any j present source of harbour board i revenue at all. Tt is found in thc [annual charge, borne chiefly by our | exporting interests, for lightering j goods from the inner harbour to : overseas vessels in the roadstead. j That annual charge is just over j £1)0,000 and a scheme that will j eliminate the necessity of lighterj age and transfer the charge to the harbour board 's earnings for thc supply of a harbour nnd wharves flint will accommodate the overseas ships, is a sound one.