THE H.B. TRIBUNE SATURDAY, AUGUST 19, 1933 PIOUS RESOLUTIONS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIII, Issue 211, 19 August 1933, Page 6

THE H.B. TRIBUNE SATURDAY, AUGUST 19, 1933 PIOUS RESOLUTIONS.

The notice of motion published yesterday as given by a Hastings member for consideration by the Napier Harbour Board at its meeting next Monday raises before that body questions of vital and immediate importance to this district. The broad proposal for the amalgamation of the three district authorities, the Hawke’s Bay County Council, the Napier Harbour Board and the Hawke’s Bay Rivers Board, which new function in complete independence of one another, is of course worthy of all serious deliberation. But that movement, however desirable and even if approved—as is not at all likely with the Board constituted as at present—can be carried out only with legislative sanction and therefore with great delay. The matter of real urgency at the moment is to bring about a very much more cordial and active measure of co-opera-tion than hitherto among these three bodies.

The pressing need for this was fully, though perhaps a little bit belatedly, recognised at last Monday’s meeting of the Council. At that meeting the chairman was able to point to conditions arising from a quite minor flooding of the Tutaekuri river that very prejudicially' affected all the interests which these three bodies are intended to serve. The case for co-ordination of activities was then very clearly put before members, who were unanimous in supporting and passing the resolution to that end submitted by the

chairman. It will be a matter of great interest to the people of this district to note not only to what extent the Harbour Board will endorse the Council’s resolution but also to what extent it will later on give it practical support. It is not, of course, by any means the first time that the question of working in concert with the Rivers Board has been before the Harbour Board. • But, beyond placing pious resolutions upon the minute-book, virtually nothing whatever has been done by those responsible for seeing them carried out. It was some months ago duly resolved that all possible support would be given to the Rivers Board in pushing along the execution of its diversion scheme. But it would be very difficult for the chairman of the Harbour Board, particularly responsible for appropriate action, to show that anything worth while has been done to give effect to the expressed desire of his Board. To all intents and purposes its resolution has thus become a virtual dead letter and might just as well never have been passed. This, too, is in spite of the fact that, as everybody knows, the river diversion is an essentia] factor in the restoration and maintenance of the only facilities readily available for shipping our produce to its distant markets.

The motive behind all this studied inaction is quite obvious. Although great efforts are just now being made to persuade people to the contrary, the obstructions that stand in the way of the free use of facilities that have proved quite efficient in the past are clearly traceable to siltation from the river that is to be diverted. On the other hand, it is equally manifest that the preservation and aggravation of these obstructions, so throwing existing facilities out of commission, would serve well to help in promoting the schemes by which the ratepayers are to be committed to the immediate expenditure of half a million and the eventual expenditure of a full million of money at the Breakwater. Hence we have the languid and lukewarm support, if any at all, which the chairman of the Harbour Board has given to the diversion scheme. Nor, with the motive mentioned still dominating every other consideration, is anything more to be expected of him in the future unless effectively stirred by the fullest possible expression of public opinion. While on the subject of shelved resolutions it is not out of place that the Harbour Board chairman should be asked what steps, if any, he took to give effect to that calling for the admission of the unemployed of the whole harbour rating district to participation in the “village” project on the Board’s endowment land. Since that resolution was passed the public have had no single word from him. Though nothing was said about it at the time, it has not, however, escaped our attention that, when the result of the ballot for sections in this settlement was declared, the only successful applicants were residents of his own town. We have every good reason, too, for believing that the ballot itself was similarly restricted. Is this another case where the expressed wishes of the Board have been either ignored or been given such feeble representation as to prove wholly ineffective? Something more than mere lip-service to the Board’s decisions is wanted, though seemingly not to be expected, from him.