OUR HARBOUR POLICY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8364, 26 February 1913, Page 6

OUR HARBOUR POLICY

There appears to he a movement on foot, and a very ill-advised one, to hustle the Wellington Harbour Board into reckless competition with Auckland in the expenditure of .borrowed money for the construction of harbour works. It must be apparent to every mode-rate-minded and thoughtful person in this community that Wellington has been doing very well in the matter of accommodation for shipping. Steady pace has been kept with the growth of the traffic, the harbour works are based on a well-defined plan, and at any moment they can be extensively added to consistently with our requirements. To suggest that we should take Auckland as our example is to propose that we should abandon a well-ordered system of development for an entirely new, extravagant, and costly scheme of questionable value as compared with what we have already got. The Auckland Harbour Board, after recklessly tearing down a great deal of comparatively new wharf and shed structure that was good for twenty or forty years to come, and spending nearly a million of money, is beginning to suffer from the strain of worry and useless regret. Its borrowing resources are nearly exhausted and, when the recent loan of a quarter of a million is spent, raised in London at the excessive price of 5 per cent., it is questionable whether Auckland ■will have as many deep water berths as wore available when the scheme was started. Much of this money has been spent in an .unnecessary number of sheds, this particular form of accommodation being provided to the full extent of the requirements of half-a-cen-tury hence. What will they bo worth when the time arrives for their use ? Money has been wasted on two-story sheds, which are admittedly obsolete, and necessitate double handling, and other money has been hopelessly wasted on walls that have fallen into the harbour. Only recently, two responsible members of the Auckland engineering staff resigned as a protest against the whole harbour system, with which they refused any longer to bo identified, and notwithstanding the_ popular demand for a careful investigation the Board has refused to authorise any inquiry. To the minds of most thoughtful Auckland people, it has gradually been coming home that the whole harbour scheme is a costly mistake that should never hare been entered upon on such a scale. To propose that Wellington should adopt a policy of imitation, and accept Auckland as an exemplar, is absolute folly. Mr Robert Fletcher, who has displayed sagacity and levelheaded and sound practical commonsense in the management of onr harbour trust, says the Wellington Harbour Board does not intend to pursue a policy of extravagant expenditure. This declaration, in view of Hie pressure sought to be exerted, is wise and reassuring. “The Board does not lack foresight,” says Mr Fletcher, “and it is not overlooking the needs of the future. It is not unmindful of the fact that this is the day of the big ship, nynrl that extra accommodation will have to be provided, but the Board does not, wish to spend a lot of money just at present.” In this particular matter, the Board and Mr Fletcher are prudent and sensible, and, at the same time, may be depended upon to embark upon a courageous forward policy when the right moment comes.