THE H.B. TRIBUNE WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 10th., 1924. HARBOUR MATTERS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIV, Issue 234, 10 September 1924, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 10th., 1924. HARBOUR MATTERS.

Apparently, in the absence of any constructive and progressive proposals acceptable to a majority of members, the affairs of the Napier Harbour Board have reached something like a dead-end, or, at least, the wait-and-see stage. At any rate, the discussions at yesterday’s meeting did not afford any very great promise of advancement in any direction, while the reports tabled made anything but hopeful reading. There are, however, two or three points upon which some comment may be made. The first is with regard to the recent investigation carried out by the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department at the instance of the Minister of Marine. An intimation seems to have been given by the Minister that the report following upon Mr. Furkert’s enquiries is not likely to be made available for the information of members of the board. let alone of the public. We are completely in agreement with the resolution carried urging the Minister to let the Board have a copy of the report, which, however, should have gone further in the way of securing authority to publish it.

So far as the Board is concerned it is entirely unfair that the Minister —who, by the way, is seeking to be endowed with even wider powers than he has in the way of controlling harbour construction—should be under the influence of representations made by the professional head of his department of which the Board itself is kept in ignorance. Beyond this, if the report is of any real value, in the way either of criticism of the past or suggestion aa to the future, then the Board should surely be given the benefit of it. Then, again, it is surely due to those responsible for the past that they should be afforded the fullest opportunity of answering any adverse comment that may have been made. That the Minister should without hearing them come to conclusions and take decisions is not only distinctly unjust to them, but may also reflect very seriously upon the interests of the people of a big productive area who are quite warrantably anxious to have an efficient outlet for their exportable produce. Having these considerations in view it is difficult to conceive of the Minister advancing any convincing argument why he should not comply with the very reasonable request that is being made to him. The call for the fullest possible publicity is only the more emphatic that so many entirely false impressions have been created in the course of the factious agitation that has been raised in the local press, leaving the public in an entirely bewildered state of mind as to the true fgets of the case.

In the second place, we again have a reference made to Messrs. Cullen and Keele’s scheme which suggests that sonje modification of it, or addition to it, is essential in order to avert the flooding of land contiguous to the Inner Harbour. The view han already been expressed here more than once, anil is now again repeated, that all unfavoiiiAble criticism of this scheme and suggestion for its variation should be submitted to its authors or formulators along with any fresh reliable data that may be of assistance to them. A great deal of money has already been spent in the direction of carrying out the scheme, so that apart altogether from the question of their being obviously entitled to an opportunity to answer attacks upon it, the interests of the community on whose behalf the money has been spent require that their further considered opinion should be obtained. One of them at least is, we understand, readily and quickly accessible, and the sooner the Board puts itself in communication with him on the moot points that have been raised the better for us all. As there seems likely to be a halt for some little time in the prosecution of the scheme, his opinion, which may dispel many unfounded doubts that have been raised, would probably be forthcoming before the time comes for resuming constructional activities.

A third point, though one of quite minor importance, should also be publicly and definitely cleared up. That is with respect to whether or not the Board complied with the prescribed regulations regarding the deposit of plans. This is a matter that concerns the public very little, excepting in so far as their confidence in the Board’s officials may have been shaken. It would, indeed, have scarcely been worthy of special notice had it not been that, to aid the general purpose of clouding the more vital issues, a great deal was made of it in the press campaign of misrepresentation. Its only real significance lies in the reflection which it must necessarily cast upon the Board’s officials. It was stated at yesterday’s meeting that, as a result of the interview of the chairman and one of the members with the Minister, this matter had been satisfactorily disposed of. and the chairman expressed himself as quite sure that the Board was not in the wrong. Should this be the case, as doubtless it is, then surely those against whom the imputation lay should have it as specifically withdrawn as it was made—that is, by writing from the department given the fullest possible publicity in the columns responsible for affording such great and quite uncalled for prominence to the Department’s mistaken previous statement. It appears, however, as if it might be very much doubted whether this bare act of justice will be done by either Minister or journal.