The Daily News. SATURDAY’, MAY 19, 1928. A QUESTION OF POLICY.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 May 1928, Page 12

The Daily News. SATURDAY’, MAY 19, 1928. A QUESTION OF POLICY.

The reports on harbour development, considered by the Board in camera at recent meetings, and published in yesterday’s issue, should be, and no doubt have been, carefully read by all interested in the progress of the port, and particularly by those in the harbour rating area. It will be seen that Mr. J. R. Cruiekshank, one of the hardest working members of the Board, had gone to no little trouble in preparing an alternative scheme to that which had been previously accepted by the Board, his reason for bringing it forward for consideration being bn the score of economy. The position is that owing to unforeseen circumstances, due to the rapid increase in trade, the loan money authorised has been so severely encroached upon that there is now insufficient available to carry out the building of the new Moturoa Wharf, erect the sorting sheds thereon, provide the necessary equipment, and do the dredging and other work to which the Board is committed. To proceed with the original scheme means that a further loan in the vicinity of £150,000 will be required. Basing estimates on the increase in revenue during the past five years it would seem that when the work is completed it will be necessary to levy a harbour rate to provide interest and sinking fund on this extra £150,000. Mr. Cruiekshank and other members of the Board naturally desire to avoid this, but at the same time want to provide the port with the accommodation and facilities so urgently required within the finances of the Board. Hence the alternative scheme. At last month’s“meeting it was withdrawn immediately following the reports thereon by the Board’s engineer and harbourmaster. The public did not understand Mr. Cruiekshank’s reason for so precipitatively withdrawing it. With the publication

of the reports they will readily understand that he had no option but to do so. The engineer condemned it in toto, describing it as being “singularly devoid of merit,’’ but giving it little of that impartial and dispassionate examination and criticism to which it was entitled. Not only that, but he went out of his way to obtrude his views on matters of policy that are beyond the province of any engineer or official. The surprise is that a report couched in such infelicitous terms and infringing the rights of the members, .was in the first place permitted to come before the Board, and in the second place was not strongly objected to by the Board as a whole. In failing to do so it showed palpable weakness, as well as a lack of a sense of the fitness of things. It is clear that the engineer does not want the Board to depart from its original scheme, and his desire can be understood and appreciated, for undoubtedly the Moturoa wharf as designed by him is an excellent piece of work, which, when carried out, will deservedly reflect credit upon himself. But the public which has to foot the bill naturally desires to feel satisfied that the best is being done, anc. that any alternative scheme has been fully considered by the Board before a decision is come to. It cannot be said that Mr. Cruiekshank’s proposals were considered at all. They were simply condemned as being unworthy of consideration, and Mr. Cruiekshank immediately withdrew them. But we submit that the public, after reading them, will think otherwise, and say that they merit the most careful consideration. They will re collect that when Mr. Maxwell’s proposals for the erection of another wharf were brought down they were roundly condemned by the then engineers, and their views were supported for a time by nearly every member of the Board, but later it was recognised the proposals contained a great deal of merit, and eventually thev were put into effect. If the Board had not built this wharf, against the express advice of the engineers, where would the port be today? Absolutely incapable of handling the trade offering. The situation was saved by a member who had vision and courage. After this experience, the Board should pay careful heed to any scheme having for its object the, development of the port. At this juncture we do not wish to express any opinion upon the statements made by the Board’s officers, further than to say that had they had a direction to condemn the proposals by “bell, book and candle,” they could not have succeeded in greater measure. We but desire meantime to register a protest against the scant and cavalier manner in which they were treated, and to affirm the principle that the Board, and not its officers, should dictate the policy in regard to harbour development.