THE MINISTER EXPLAINS.

Southland Times, Issue 19522, 23 May 1922, Page 4

THE MINISTER EXPLAINS.

In another place the Minister in charge of the Tourist Department, the Hon. W. Nosworthy, replies to some criticism we ventured upon in connection with the leasing of the Te Anau steamer, and suggests that our references to his action in. that matter were made “without a true knowledge of the facts.” As a matter of fact we. think we had a better understanding of the position than had the Minister when be made his decision in. connection with the boat, but that point, of course, does not touch the letter Mr Nosworthy is pleased to send to us. The Minister explains that the change in the control of the steamer was adopted in the interests of economy (which a correspondent effectively challenges in this morning’s issue), and “with the object of enabling tourists and others to visit the various fiords on days when the steamer is not required for Milford Track passengers.” Mr Nosworthy is careful to tell us that “this should have the effect of making more widely known the beautiful scenic attractions on Lake Te Anau.” The explanations are illuminating, and they suggest that the conduct of the Te Anau service by the department in the past has not been as flexible or as effective as it should have been. Mr Nosworthy seems to have overlooked the criticism of his own department which this explanation of the change in control implies. So far as the Minister’s-telegram to Mr Adam Hamilton is concerned we have no hesitation in reminding the Minister that its text implies that tho Otago Expansion League had been consulted. We accept without qualification Mr Nosworthy’s assurances • that this was not intended, and that he did not consult either league. On the wisdom of his decision to act without consulting the leagues, however, we hold very decided opinions. We are aware that “it is not incumbent on the Department to consult any League or person regarding questions of policy or administration,” but that does not mean that prudent administration should not Urge consultation with the Leagues. The Minister informs us that if the Otago League had objected it does not follow that the Department would have taken any other course, and we may take it, although he does not mention the fact, that objections from tho Southland League would have no more weight, but we would expect at least that protests from either would have resulted in more searching inquiries being made before the contemplated action was taken. Mr Nosworthy says that his Department is always pleased to consider the views “of those particularly interested,” but of what value is that attitude in the present case or in any other matter of a similar nature, when the Department acts first and holds itself open to “views” afterwards 1 !' We would be interested to know exactly what inquiries were made before the Department leased the steamer. We would also like Mr Nosworthy to tell us in what way the Department would have suffered by consulting the Southland League in connection with this matter before it acted and exactly what weight he attached to the incidental mentioning of the fact that the Otago League had endorsed the Department’s action.