Bay Of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1949

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 14, Issue 51, 14 October 1949, Page 4

Bay Of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1949

THE HARBOUR QUESTION We seem to be having a lot to say about the harbour question lately, but we do so because we are convinced it is a matter of major importance to this district. Today’s news features outside comment on the scheme, and the main theme seems to be doubt that something could be achieved here which Gran-dad thought impossible.

Maybe Grand-dad was no better informed as to the possibilities than a lot of present-day critics who would brush aside the idea of a deceit harbour at Whakatane as quite ridiculous.

Though it would appear that some of our contemporaries in the Bay do not share our optimism, we firmly believe that there is sufficient merit in the Brebner scheme to warrant the serious consideration of the Government in comparison, with the development of Tauranga’s facilities.

We are ready to concede that, from a layman’s point of view, Tauranga, and in particular the Mount Maunganui side of the harbour, does appear to have natural advantages that might be developed at no greater cost that the building of a port here might involve. However, a port’s value must be assured chiefly on its ability to handle trade economically. And we are firmly convinced, on the expert opinions we have already sought and published, that on that score there is a strong argument in Whakatane’s favour.

We do not go so far at this stage as to assert that the Government will also accept that view. We do not consider it our province to set ourselves up as an authority competent to override the professional opinion of experts who have studied this sort of problem all their lives, and we would prefer to let the experts make their choice on the evidence available. What we do chum is that all the evidence sho Id be considered. before that c oice is made. More than that whs not sought by Whakatane delegates to the conference at Rotoua, which was by no means unanimous (as has been suggested in some quarters) in its decision to support the Tauranga scheme without asking for further investigation. Though, the Bay of Plenty Times’s bold editorial assertion that the decision has already been made might be sound psychology in that it aims to delude people into believing that a desired goal is already achieved, it is the kind tf wishful thinking that can lead to the bitterest disappointment. We have not been able to unearth any evidence that there is any official sanction for such a statement.

We appreciate the fair-mind-ed attitude of the Rotorua Post,

which admits frankly that there is substance in the Whakatane claims, though not committing itself to support of them.

Jn view of that attitude .‘from Rotorua, which might have been expected to have some greater community of .interest with Tauranga than this end of the Bay, the attitude of our contemporary at Opotiki is surprising. The Opotiki News slams the scheme unreservedly and apparently on its own initiative, without seeking any qualified opinion to back its attack.

We believe that, if the plan were placed before a representative gathering of Opotiki citizens, there would be a larger percentage of them ready to agree that it merits further consideration, though naturally we would hestiate to expect their full support until an expert report on the relative merits of the two plans could be obtained.

That, we think, is the reasonable attitude at the present stage. We do not presume to say, without the results of a full investigation to guide us, that the Tauranga plan should be abandoned in favour of the, Whakatane one. We do not consider any layman, be he journalist, local body member or otherwise, qualified to say the one scheme is better than the other until proper evidence as to their relative merits is available.

That is why the ill-considered ravings of some of our contemporaries cause us to raise the eyebrow.