AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4389, 13 March 1922, Page 3

AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE.

IGNORANCE AND IMPUDENCE. THAMES ' “PATRONISING” ATTITUDE. TO PAEROA AND T 0 AROHA. (By Litferatus..) Thames’ patronising attitude •oward Paeroa and Te Aroha is one that is causing mingled amusement and resentment. The local paper at Thames which is owned mainly by the business people in the marine borough, and may be supposed to reflect the views of its owners, has the impudence to print notes about both Paeroa and Te Arojia under the heading of “ Country News.” Amusement is felt by local pebple who know the conditions existing, botlh Paeroa and Te Aroha being centres that, are not in any way appanages of Thames or any other town, but at the same time they recognise that when the Thames paper is brought by an advertising canvasser under the notice of Auckland or Wellington merchants, many of whom have no local knowledge whatever, Te Aroha and Paeroa are belittled by the appearance of notes in a paper published at Thames, arranged under the heading of “Country News.” This patronising attitude will not increase the trade between the two towns mentioned and Thames business houses. I understand that the Paeroa and Te Aroha chambers of commerce, whose members have a desire to appreciate the status of their respective boroughs, intend to make official objection against this depreciation. If the Thames paper wishes to obtain a circulation throughout the Thames Valley it should “boost” rjather than belittle the chief centres in the Valley.. It.s consistent attitude is.to “writedown,” instead of to “write up,” places outside of Thames. (The Hauraki Plains gets “patted on the back.”) There are some good illustrations of ignorance, impudence, and patronage in the following subt-tleader, which ap - peared in the Thames journal last Tuesday:

The good people* of Paeroa are complaining that river navigation is becoming more and more difficult. The Public Works Department is being freely criticised and the necessity for, dredging the Ohinemuri strenuously advocated. It appears, that mining operations have affected the condition of the river unfavourably and that something must be done Probably something should he done to improve the waterway and give the river township better access, but, it is difficult to see why it should be done at the expense* of, say, the Hauraki Plains County or the Thames Borough. As things are, it has been suggested that they should pay considerable sums for works ' that may be flood preventive and may be land drainage, so' that, possibly the use of -some ofi the money for navigation purposes may be considered quite in keeping.. The question why Thames Borough should pay twice oyer because it owns land that is not threatened by any mining silt or damaged by lack of navigation facilities remains unanswered, Indeed, the question a why it should pay a penny. more than any other landowner seems to have been; beyond those who ad-* vocate the adoption of the last Commission's report. \ In the above article the very first line is nauseous with patronage,— "The good peopie qf Paeroa.” The journal appears to be strangely ignorant of a matter which is of vast importance to the greater portion of the Hauraki Plains and Thames Valley, and in which the Hauraki, Piako, and Ohinemuri Counties are interested. Despite the columns of space the paper devoted tp reporting the evidence given before the 1921 Rivers Commission, it coolly and wltli a peculiar air of detachment remarks : "It appears that mining operations have affected the conditions of the river unfavourably.” A trip on the river by a representative of the journal would soon shew that there was not only "appearance,” but stern reality. The "river township" is a little more of patronage, butpassing that by we come to where it is admitted in an ineffective, vacuous way that probably something ought to be done to improve the river, “but it >s difficult to see why this should be done at the expense of, say, Hauraki Plains or Thames Borough.” One might suggest that .reports of the Rivers Commission evidence 'in the Thames paper might be referred to for the necessary enlightenment,; or, If they would take too much "digging out,” the report of Mr H. Poland’s speech in Parliament, as published in the "Hauraki Plains Gazette” of last Wednesday, might be perused with the same object!. Since the low-i ering of the river bed has been recommended by two successive royal commissions in order tp give a good outfall for the drainage 'jt the Hauraki Plains—and it is an axiom that drainage and navigation interests are one—it should not be "difficult to see" why the Plains should carry part of the burden—admitting that the Public Works Department’s estimate is

excessive. And as for Thames, that . complacent place will ultimately K benefit greatly if the rivers are kept W open, as they will become valuable feeders to tlie harbour if the improvement scheme is given effect to. Incidentally, the consensus of opinion is that the harbour should be at Kopuy but: doubtless there will be further investigation into the practical bility of the scheme before the ratepayers will sanction the raising of the needful. And maybe a river board will take over the whole river control, including Kopu.. If more tact had been manifested from Thames in the past, possibly the Thames Harbour Board would long since have been invited to take over the control of the Waihou River to , To Aroha and the Ohinemuri to Paeroa, but there is no possibility of such a request being made now, especially as Thames has made it clear

that it does not care a continental what happens to the rivers as far) as navigation beyond Tunra is concerned. Slflsliness does not pay in the long run. The possibility of this river trade to Thames Harbour constitutes a reason for why Thames Borough (main beneficiary) should have to pay once, and its ownership of endowments in the area concern-, ed is the reason for why it should be taxed twice. There is also reason pf retribution for why Thames should dub up double: when- notice was served to the Lord High Muck-.a Mucks of Thames that they should be represented atl the Commission they treated the matter with supercilious superiority, just off-handedly telling the stalwart B. J. C. to keep an eye on the other blighters. Pride comes before a fall and perhaps Thames will take the next Royal Commission seriously when it is invited to get its case up. The Thames paper wants to know why Thames Borough lias to pay one penny piece on land that gets no mining silt and does not need navigation. The fact that the reason is one of drainage is not mentioned, probably on account of the lack of local knowledge, which is excusable, seeing that the journal has very evidently paid scant attention to the fundamentals of the problems involved. There are a few more "say-sos” that "those who advocate the adoption of last Commission’s report” might express, but they will keep for a future occasion. In the meantime, if the leading lights in the district port will learn the beauty and virtue of humility, and drop their confoundedly patronising attitude, we shall all get along better, and when Paeroa climbs ahead of Thames—as it is bound to do within the next decade, or sooner, the people of this centre will be able to wear their honours gracefully, and be respectful and considerate towards the relatively, though not actually or absolutely diminished head of Thames.