THE H.B. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1933 DIVERSIONS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 102, 11 April 1933, Page 6

THE H.B. TRIBUNE TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1933 DIVERSIONS.

No one is foolish enough now to expect to find anything very edifying in reports of the meetings of the Napier Harbour Board, so that none will be disappointed at the tone that continued to pervade yesterday’s gathering of its members. There was, of course, the customary waste of time in the exhibitions of petty personal animosities that have brought this public body into derision among all outsiders taking any note of its doings. However, coming to yesterday 's actual proceedings, it has to be noted that some good results were actually achieved. The main theme of contention was the motion tabled by Mr. Jull proposing that the Harbour Board should secure permission from the Rivers Board to put a stopbank across the Tutaekuri river. This was designed to serve the double object of assisting in the diversion of that stream and of preventing the carriage into the Inner Harbour of the silt which is blocking it and threatening to make it temporarily useless for the purposes it has satisfactorily fulfilled for so many years. It is unnecessary here to discuss further all the pros and cons that were advanced. It is sufficient to note that, though the motion was narrowly defeated, it had the effect of forcing something for which we have in vain been contending for a good few months now. That is, of course, some much more active movement than hitherto in the way of cooperating with the Rivers Board in carrying through the complete diversion of the Tutaekuri river. There has been every good reason for complaint that, though stressed by their own advisory engineers as an essential work to be put through as soon as possible, the majority on the Harbour Board have, to say the best for them, been most blamably apathetic about lending their weight to it. There are, of course, those who, perhaps with somo good reason, can see something more than mere indifference in the adoption of this attitude. Possibly, too, the imminence of an election of Napier members to the Board may account for a present change of front, for the residents of Napier South at any rate can scarcely but be deeply concerned to see the diversion carried out. We shall have to await the practical outcome of the proposed conference with the Rivers Board before it can be said whether or not prospective candidates already on the Harbour

Board are merely paying diplomatic lip service to this so important undertaking. If suspicions of this kind are aroused they have only themselves to blame as having been so significantly tardy in doing what expert advisers of their own choosing told them months ago should be done at once. It is, of course, unfortunate that the Rivers Board would seem to have become badly infected with the spirit of dissension that has so long held possession of the neighbouring body. It is here that, if they are really sincere in the professions now so loudly made, the chairman and members of the Harbour Board may be able to do much by assisting in effecting something in the way of reconciliation. As to the gentleman who happens to be a member of both bodies, he would seem yesterday to have been in a very bellicose humour and full of hot resentment at the Harbour Board “poking its nose” into Rivers Board affairs. Surely, however, when he comes to think things over and, as a member of the Harbour Board, realise how deeply that body is interested, he will change his mood and try to help things along. His proper role is manifestly that of liaison officer between the two boards, and not that of a sower of trouble between them. They have many interests in common and, though it is said to be difficult to serve two masters, it is a difficulty that in this instance should be easily overcome. If we are going to have merely a formal arm’s length conference, with a display of the spirit that was manifested yesterday, then no one can believe in the good faith of the protestations then made. In conclusion note may be taken of the references made to the “Tribune” by some of yesterday’s speakers, who accuse us of misrepresentation damaging to the port. We fancy, however, that the general opinion is that this paper has served a very useful purpose in bringing to light many facts of which the public should have been made aware by the Harbour Board itself, but which otherwise would have been carefully buried away among its dusty achives. In any event, it would be impossible for it to «k more dertiment to the reputation of the port than is caused by those members of the Board itself who so continually and persistently blazon it forth to the world that our harbour can admit and accommodate none but second or. third class shipping.