PORT INQUIRY BEGINS; PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS MADE; HARBOURS INSPECTED

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 16, Issue 14, 1 November 1950, Page 5

PORT INQUIRY BEGINS; PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS MADE; HARBOURS INSPECTED

After making preliminary arrangements on Monday, the committee came to Whakatane apd inspected the, port, leaving yesterday to do the same at Tauranga. The hearing will resume today. The committee comprises Judge Archer, Messrs D. J. C. Marchbanks, chief engineer to the Wellington Harbour Board, and F. H. McAuley, chief accountant, New Zealand Railways and Mr V. R. Meredith is appearing for it and will lead evidence for various Government departments. Senior counsel for the Tauranga bodies is Mr H. O. Cooney; with him are associated Messrs W. S. Holand (Tauranga Borough), Hon. K. E. Barnard (Tauranga County),! G. B. Murray (Tauranga Harbour Board), J. K. B. Lusk (Mt. Maun.ganui Borough) and P. Verschaflelt (Te Puke Borough). Mr J. D. Davys is appearing for the Rotorua Borough, Mr E. Roe for the Rotorua County and Federated Farmers; Mr R. A. Potter for the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce; Mr T. E. Henry, with him Mr W. G. Clavis, for the Whakatane Harbour Board; Mr B. S. Barry for the Whakatane County and Mr H. E. Barraclough for the Auckland Harbour Board. Mr T. J. de Lacey is the representative of the Kawhia County Council and Harbour Board. Other local authorities which ex-

pressed a desire to submit evidence were the Opotiki Borough, Waihi Borough, Matamata County, the Te Aroha Chamber of Commerce; also the sub-provincial and RotoruaNgongotaha branches of Federated Farmers.

Mr Cooney submitted as his own view that as Whakatane was presenting' a case for a harbour that it was proposed to ©reate, and as Tauranga had one in existence which only required improvement, Whakatane evidence should be heard first. Whakatane was in the position of a plaintiff which said that the present port facilities were not good enough and that it proposed to create an artificial harbour; Tauranga was anxious to know What Whakatane had to present. In the meantime, he had arranged with Mr Henry to submit all evidence in writing and the committee’s proposal that it should first inspect both ports "would give counsel an opportunity of per-

using these submissions. From the inception Mr Henry said the Whakatane interests had .asked for further time and they wanted further facts to put the case in short form before the committee. He suggested that the small--er interests be heard first and that the main contestants should follow.

Mr Meredith said that this was mainly a discussion on the respective schemes for a port and these should be before the committee before they could criticise. It was a discussion on what might be wise to be done and what scheme would be the better one for the district as a whole. The Crown was not binding itself to anything. Mr Barraclough submitted that it made no difference to the Auckland Harbour Board but he gathered that Whakatane had not finalised its case and they were particuk ‘larly anxious to see it. They would * not be in a position to cross-exam-ine intelligently without the proposal being studied. “The Whakatane proposals are definite and can be given,” Mr Henry answered. . It was agreed, on Judge Archer’s suggestion that the order of hearing should first be the case for the Crown, followed by Whakatane and then Tauranga. It was decided, on Mr L. A. Newell’s suggestion that next Monday be set aside for the hearing of the smaller bodies. The committee announced, after consultation, that it would inspect the Whakatane site first, accompanied by Messrs C. H. Brebner, engineer to the Whakatane Harbour Board; Mr A. Murray, consulting engineer to the Tauranga Harbour Board, and W. Simpson, Marine engineer to the Ministry of Works.

With an impressive array of legal talent gathered in Rotorua, the Committee of Inquiry into the Bay of Plenty port question has begiin .its sitting.