Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CORRESPONDENCE

CAROLINE BAY VERSUS HARBOUR To the Editor of “ The Timaru Herald ”

Sir,—Your very full report of the proceedings of the Timaru Harbour Board, when reports for improvement were discussed, provides most interesting, illuminating and diverting information as to the attitude of the various members, especially in respect to what the public are considered to be entitled to receive in the way of information, careful investigation and technical control of such an undertaking as the Harbour, to say nothing of the total apparent lack of consideration for Caroline Bay. In your leader on the matter you say “obviously the harbour master’s deductions require careful analysis,” a remark with which I think the majority of your readers will concur, although apparently it. does not meet with the approval of the majority of the Board, judging by the remarks at the meeting as reported in. your columns. It is evident that the attitude pointed out in a previous letter of judging from effect rather than from cause, is still the viewpoint of the Board, and further that the question of Caroline Bay is entirely ignored. This latter, in view of the recent campaign for advertising Timaru

as the potential ideal seaside resort of the South Island, is remarkable, as it 1 means, that the substance, in the shape of the evident ideal advantages of Timaru as the main tourist centre of this island, is being overlooked for the shadow of a visionary "main port of the South Island,” and on the one hand we have a plea for cash to advertise Timaru as a seaside and residential (resort, and on the other hand we have a local body trying to extract from the public more money in rates to nullify the Bay. The report has the following illuminating ’clause on this point: “The set out of the Bay would be diverted away from the harbour mouth and out of the Channel, where at present silting is most rapid if his would be diverted into the Bay).” The proceedings as reported show a + otal absence of consideration of the Bay question.

The question of finance on the reports submitted also seems to have been very summarily dealt with and in general the recommendations amount to:

(1) Increase dredging, in spite of (a) the harbourmaster’s remark that as regards vessels under construction at present “there is a tendency in present design to increase beam rather than length or draught,” and (b) that the area outside the harbour gives less draught than the harbour. (2) Increase length of Extension, Marine Parade and a mole on Dashing Rocks. As the encroachment of shingle, sand, etc., is to be allowed to go on, these extensions will result in the relative points being the same as at present and later require further extension.

(3) The cause of the trouble must be allowed to come on to the doorstep to show that the dredge, at extra cost, e. • deal with it. What will the cost of these amount to over a period? Dredging over the past seven years has amounted to £94,358 (average say £13,500 per annum). Let us put it at only £12,000. Increase this, not by

double as has been suggested, but by half only, and we have £IB,OOO per annum, or in 20 years a total of £360,000, and at the end of 20 years where are we—in the same position. What return have we for the £360,000? Nothing but sand again. Dredging is a costly palliative—why not control nature instead of fighting it? Add to this the cost of the three extensions, say only £50,000 for each, and this gives us £150,000 and a grant total of £510,000 spent in 20 years and the relative position of “as you were” and the cause of the trouble still coming down. What would be the cost of stopping the shingle before it reaches the harbour and trapping the sand before Caroline Bay? A breakwater at Point Patiti long enough to trap the shingle for 50 years (i.e., long enough to reach the point where the present breakwater has trapped the shingle over the past 50 years), would probably cost £IOO,OOO, perhaps much less as the reef already there might be utilised and it goes out for some half a mile or more. This with money at present rates, and the subsidy which could be obtained (Auckland City have just got a subsidy of £40,000 for £75,000) would cost some £4OOO. per annum, or in 20 years £BO,OOO, and although it might not entirely eliminate dredging, yet it should materially reduce the amount necessary, as a considerable portion of the sand, etc., now coming into the channel and Bay—in the light of the formation of Caroline Bay—would be trapped in the area between the two breakwaters and form a second sandy bay. In addition, there would be reclamation of land through accumulation of shingle south of Patiti. The advantages of this over the proposed schemes would be (1) Provision of work value of £IOO,OOO at award rates immediately; (2) Reduction of dredging; (3) Reclamation of land south of Patiti and in Patiti Bay; (4) Slow up shoaling of Caroline Bay and harbour channel; (5) Formation of second bay; (6) Hold up shingle accumulation for 50 years; (7) Provide room for alternative harbour in case of expansion of trade—the sea outside this area at Patiti, I believe, gives a greater depth than it does outside the present harbour area; (8) Cost over 20 years, as against £510,000 for proposed schemes would amount to only some £300,000, even including dredging at £IO,OOO per annum, thus showing a saving of some £200,000 without allowing for the possible greater opportunities for hiring out the dredge. Further there is the 50 . years efficiency in trapping the shingle. It must be pointed out that the cost of each yard added on to the Eastern Extension will be double and treble that of a breakwater at Patiti owing to the greater depth of water to be filled up. As I have previously pointed out the suggestion to make a new bay is based on the experience provided by the formation of Caroline Bay, which has come about entirely through the effect of the breakwater, and was originally never dreamed of. The length, type, angle, etc., of the suggested breakwater would need investigation in conjunction with all the available data as to currents, depths, etc., which the Timaru Harbour Board records will provide, and for this it is evident the collaboration of a geologist expert on oceanography, is indicated. The value of geological expert advice on such and other large engineering problems, has been proved out in other countries and has resulted in the elimination of mistakes. Your readers will doubtless be able to recall instances in New Zealand where costly errors could have been avoided had this been done in advance.

The inherent weakness of the two reports dealt with by the Board must be apparent to all, and as previously pointed out, the question should be treated from the all angle point of view of safeguarding both Bay and Harbour, and the future development of Timaru, in which ever direction that may go—port or resort, and all the experience of the past is definitely in favour of the latter, hence I presume the publicity campaign. A greater harbour scheme was propounded as far back as 1906, and since 1913 the trade has been going back and back in spite of greater depth and more facilities. A dry dock was even then suggested. Has this been forgotten? As for Rangi class boats. Well, I see they go to Napier, where there is no harbour and everything has to be lightered out. Why? Tonnage, which is the prime reason for shipping. I see from the figures you published the other day for the year ended September, 1934, that Timaru’s tonnage was again down, and amounted to only 113,917 tons, as against 126,591 tons in 1933, and 199,000 tons in 1913 (20 years ago). Next year, there will only be two wool sales here, so probably there will be a further reduction of tonnage, but then, of course, one must not mention tonnage. Another point which seems to require investigation is that of the disposition of the dredgings. It is a moot point as to whether or not a great deal of this simply returns to the Bay. —I am, etc., R. WILSON. Timaru, October 25.

HAS DEMOCRACY FAILED? To the Editor or " The Timaru Herald “ Sir, —Your Fairlie correspondent in reporting the result of a debate held on the question “That Demacracy has Failed,” inadvertently stated that the side maintaining the negative, of which I was the leader, lost the decision, whereas my side were the winners. This in itself was a matter ot little consequence, but what struck me as being significant was the amount of interest outside the club itself that the debate apparently aroused. The question has been asked: “Why if democracy has not failed, have we the present worldwide depression with all its accompanying evils?” Is democracy responsible, and is it unable to cope with the situation and find a remedy? The answer is that democracy has not failed, that it is capable of dealing with all the problems that confront us, and that it is the best form of government vet devised. The whole trouble is that the war that was fought “to make the world safe for democracy,:” has almost destroyed it, and the pseudo-democratic governments of the world to-day, while retaining the outward forms and shows, and employ-

ing the language of democracy, are in reality simply oligarchies, bureaucracies and virtual dictatorships thinly disguised. To take our own case here in New Zealand, we find that at the last general elections that there were in round figures some 900,000 electors enrolled. Of these, some 45 per cent, voted for elected candidates, while the remaining 55 per cent, voted for defeated candidates or failed to vote at all owing to sickness, unexpected absence and other causes. Therefore to start with, we find that the present Parliament was elected by a minority of the people and as of the 45 per cent, who cast effective votes, only twothirds or 30 per cent, of those on the roll voted for Government supporters, it will be seen that the present Government holds office at the will of a bare 30 per cent, of the electorate, while of the remaining 70 per cent. 15 per cent, are represented by the Opposition, and 55 per cent, have no representation at all in the councils of the nation. Naturally the 30 per cent, of electors responsible for the Government and its policy, comprises all that is Conservative, Tory and reactionary in our social life, and therefore we not only have a Government that does not govern with the consent of a majority of the governed, but is class Government in one of its worst forms. It may' be argued that if the 30 per cent, of electors supporting the Government, comprise the intelligentsia of the country, matters are not so bad after all, but this is by no means the case, and besides not even this comparatively small minority has a free and unrestricted choice of candidates. If the sitting Member for a district has few qualifications for the position, the rank and file of the Party may suggest a fresh man, with much more ability and endeavour to have him adopted as the official candidate by the Party executive. But if the SittingMember Is a tried and trusted Party hack, whose one guiding principle is “My Party, right or wrong, and if it’s wrong, well, still my Party,” they are sure to fail in this endeavour. Under these circumstances, only two courses lie open to them —either they must support the incompetent sitting Member and make sure of retaining the seat for the Party, or they may bring their own man out, as an Independent, and run the grave risk of the Party coming to the ground between two stools, which will certainly be the result if a strong Opposition man is in the field. It therefore follows in almost all cases that in spite of some discontent, the decision of the Party chiefs is accepted. Undoubtedly in its early days the present electoral system in a rough and ready way secured majority representation for the people, but for a good many years now clever people have learnt to so manipulate it, that it has no longer any right to be called anything but false or pseudo-democracy. Thus it comes about that the mass of the people are deprived of an effective voice and vote in the country’s affairs, and are to all intents and purposes disfranchised, no matter how carefully and conscientiously they record their votes, without them even being aware of the fact. Let me give a simple instance of how the will of the majority may be defeated by arranged vote-splitting. Let us suppose that a meeting has been called to elect a member to fill a vacancy on a country school committee, and the question of heating the school is the deciding factor. Thirty-six householders attend, and of these, twentythree favour a fire-place being put in the north end and thirteen, mostly bachelors, oppose it on the ground that cold is good for children, as it keeps them from becoming soft and besides, they point out that there is a slump on, and in any case, the available money will be better employed In providing extra ventilation. In a straight-out vote, the parents win by 23 votes to 13 over the bachelors, but if the bachelors can induce one of the majority to stand as a third candidate in favour of a fireplace in the south end of the room, it might be possible to split the vote so that the result would be as follows:—In favour of a fireplace in the north end, 12; in favour of a fireplace in the south end, 11; against having the school heated at all, 13. As a result, of course, the 13 bachelors win as against the 23 parents, who wish to have the school heated for their children. This is a simple illustration of one of the many methods used by clever tacticians to defeat the will of the people, while employing all the forms of democracy. I can see no hope for the future save in the restoration of effective democratic control in national affairs. Dictatorships will not help us for Pericles and Caesar, Cromwell and Napoleon all failed as Mussolini and Hitler are failing to-day, to do their countries lasting good. Government by any one class is equally disastrous. Even should a great and enlightened leader arise in our midst, there would be small cause for hope, as the extreme sections of society, the so-called ruling class on the one hand, and the ignorant section on the other, would unite to crucify him. It is only the masses—the common people—who will hear him gladly, as they did Lincoln, as they did Seddon and, and as they will again when such another arrives. To-day there is no reform of greater importance than electoral reform, as on this depends and hinges all other reforms, yet in spite of the fact that a very simple and effective system is available which would insure absolutely that the will of the people found expression in Parliament, the reform is opposed, not only by those whose retention oi office depends on the maintenance of the present obsolete system, but also by some of those whose present deplorable economic position is due to the fact that they have been virtually disfranchised for the last quarter of a century. Communism and anarchy are simply the counter parts of reactionary conservatism, and under a system of genuine democratic government these two extreme social forces would automatically cancel one another out, leaving the great sane mass of moderate opinion to find a safe middle course free from “the falsehood of extremes.” History shows that no single man or any one class of men can ever be good enough or wise enough to govern other

men without injustice, the common sense of common men, who by intuition understand so much more than they know, alone being equal to the great task of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. The sinister forces arranged against democracy since 1914 have almost succeeded in destroying it. This is where the real menace to our freedom lies, for we cannot have government of the people for the people, unless we also have government by the people.—l am, etc., S. P. BRAY. Sherwood Downs, October 24. CRICKET IN GERALDINE To the Editor of “ The Timaru Herald ” Sir.—lt is evident that “Not Clean Bowled’s” middle stump has gone flying. He makes no attempt in his letter to-day to answer any of the questions in my letter published on October 19th, and courageously hides behind some women’s club, which he mentions in his letter—May their skirts shield him!—l am, etc. PLAY THE GAME. Geraldine, October 25.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THD19341027.2.122

Bibliographic details

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19941, 27 October 1934, Page 17

Word Count
2,859

CORRESPONDENCE Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19941, 27 October 1934, Page 17

CORRESPONDENCE Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19941, 27 October 1934, Page 17

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert