PORT CHRISTCHURCH OR NOTHING

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21866, 20 August 1936, Page 8

PORT CHRISTCHURCH OR NOTHING

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir—Thanks for a slogan which is henceforth to be “Port Christchurch or Nothing.” In your article this morning you say—about the meeting of the Minister for Public Works, the Hon. R. Semple, with the rival organisations who are advocating better access to the sea—that the Minister did not say, and can hardly have intended to imply that the Government would consider itself bound by such a. referendum. Exactly, this is most correct. What the Minister did say, and what every sensible-minded man would say, was: “If you people will make up your minds on this question, when there is no division of opinion, then, and not till then, approach the Government and we will consider ; the question.” The Minister agrees with us that there is only one way of finding out wishes of the majority of the people—not a dozen or two tunnel readers, but a majority of people who do not want a second blunder to be made. You say: “If the Government is to spend millions of public money on improving the port facilities it must be guided, not by what the citizens of Christchurch think or are persuaded to think, but by the advice of its. own experts.” Well, what about it? Are our own experts to be compared with experts from overseas who have condemned any further money being expended in Lyttelton while we can build a better, cheaper, and in every way a more up-to-date harbour on this side of the hill? Never mind bothering about local experts; it has been proved that this is no wild-cat scheme, but a practical common-sense job. Again you say: “There is already a large body of expert testimony against Port Christchurch.” Where is it? I wouldl say that this statement is quite contrary to fact/ Is this, the same expert advice which you support which favoured the spending of thousands on that monumental absurdity known as the causeway? You say again, “that an impressive body of informed opinion has asked for the tunnel road.” Informed opinion is good, but where did the information come from? Not from Professor Hornell, who is the greatest expert who has ever visited the Dominion on questions such as this. “The activities of the Port Christchurch League do not bring its project any nearer realisation; they merely provide governments with an excuse for leaving Christchurch without improvements which she badly needs,” you say. How can you make this statement? Is it not the agitation of the league which has kept this question before the people for the last 30 or 40 years? The late Mr T. E. Taylor, as you know, or ought to know, was an ardent supporter of a harbour in the estuary, and he was only one amongst a whole host of men of vision who favoured this great project. And we are near the dawn when the. Minister says in his direct manner, “Get united.” In other words, he means, “Get the verdict of the people. My Government is here to do the people’s job,'not to tell you what you want but for the people To tell us whaf they want.’'*: That is democracy. „ In conclusion X want to say that the difference between the two opposing camps is this: Olte, the, Port Christchurch League/is prepared to trust the people. On the other hand the tunnel readers will have none of the people s verdict. “They, the people.” they say, “do not understand the question. They may be intelligent enough to be rated for the cost should the job eventuate, but they are not intelligent enough to vote on such an important question. We, the tunnel readers, will have all the knowledge, all the expert opinion, We object to you having a vote, but we will not object to your helping to pay for a job in which you had no say.” There is jusi one important thing which these poor souls (tunnel readers) seem to forget, and that is that there is a people’s government in power.—Yours, etc., P H. L. SHAW. August 18, 1 936.