On the face of the report the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society should feel not only disappointed, but cheated. It petitioned Parliament for a conclusive determination of the issue, i.e. that it not permit the waters of the lake to be raised. The "riders" however, are so fundamentally at odds with the recommendations of "favourable" considerations that the select committee has in fact facilitated the very opposite of what the Society sought. When the tens of thousands of dollars donated by the public to the Society and the Save Manapouri Campaign are added to the vast sums the Government has invested in the Cabinet Committee, the Commission of Enquiry, and the Select-Committee the magnitude of the resources devoted to merely investigative and adjudicatory process become apparent - six figures probably being a conservative estimate.

Every fact, every viewpoint, every possible hypothesis has been brought to bear on the issue. The only thing found wanting has been political fortitude - but it has never been a party to the controversy since money could never persuade it to come along. After ten years the public is entitled to a little better than this.

Nobody could realistically expect the Government to come out the door like Bad-Legs Diamond, with its hands up, crying out "don't shoot G-men." Governments just don't do this. They will always manage to put a gloss on the surrender to make it look like an honourable compromise. In this light, then, it is possible to regard the ecommendation of "favourable" consideration as the substantial finding, and the riders as the face-saving part of the formula. After all, everyone knows that with growing conservation awareness the public opinion climate for a decision to raise the lake will become increasingly negative as time goes on. Given that the Government knows this, the wide foundation routine becomes far less of a catch. The question is, does the Government in fact appreciate that the public wants to see the better aspects of New Zealand life preserved and is prepared to put its money where a quarter of a million-strong section of it put its mouths.

Alas, the debate on Wednesday afternoon following the tabling of the report confirmed the suspicion that the fourty-four tired men on the right-hand side of the chamber have stood still in their thinking while New Zealand has been marching on. First we had the Chairman of the Committee, the Hon A.E. Allan, with a series of Parliamentary gems that will be remembered more for their originality than their relevance. Raising the lake, the country was told, would enable elderly tourists to step right off the boat into the top section of the stockyard love walk. He could have added that they would also be able to climb to the top of 27 foot trees without having to actually climb them. (Tarzan was originally a fish). Then there was a repetition of his colleague's libel about the part played by school-children in swelling the numbers of the petitioners, only this time it was made behind the secure barriers of Parliamentary privilege. Mr Allen rounded off with an attack on the perspective of some of the country's most eminent natural scientists who represented submissions that the Commission of Enquiry went out of its way to praise for their objectivity.

He was later joined by the Hon E.S.F. Holland who, while recognising the need for safeguarding the environment, could not quite see what all the fuss was about.

The real bombshell, however, came from a certain Minister of Works who had better remain nameless, who, after repeating the time-honoured piece about the 'binding' agreement, made it clear that he would recommend that the full arrangement in the current agreement be maintained.

People should thus be aware that the agreement is being used as an excuse to justify adhering to a scheme that a number of politicians have become personally committed to.

Wednesday's debate demonstrated clearly that these politicians are just as committed as ever and that their basic attitude has not altered.

The proceedings and report of the Select Committee do, however, leave room for real optimism. This arises from a fairly subtle twist that a proper interpretation must give the report. The remarks made during the debate show clearly that the real attitude of the committee is to be found in the riders and not in the head recommendations. In that sense the latter is ancillary and subordinate to the former. The only thing that could have prompted the committee to include the ecommendation of favourable consideration would have been fear of the enormous weight of public opinion behind the petition. We have to accept that the sound reasons behind the public desire to save Manapouri will never find a place in the imaginations of the committee. What is important is the simple fact that the public does desire to leave Manapouri unspoiled and no amount of scepticism in politician's minds as to the validity of the reasons for this desire will detract from its actuality and the dire reality of the ballot box. It is a natural human reaction to discontent, belittle, and laugh at what is feared. Hence the insulting emphasis by Government speakers in Wednesday's debate on he peripheral and irrelevant aspects of the great issue raised by the petition, namely whether the public's expression of its sense of values is going to be given effect to.

The present writer would hardly presume to attribute the whole of the eighteen percent swing agains: the Government at Marlborough to the Manapouri debate, but it is unquestionable that it had a good deal to do with it. The Committee's "sop" to public opinion, in the form of the head recommendation, shows that the fear of a nation-wide repetition of the Marlborough debacle is very much alive in the Government's mind. There are a number of other reasons too, for not being too pessimistic.

Tactics for the future;

Naturally, the Save Manapouri Campaign, will remain in action to work alongside the new national federation of Conservation groups now in the process of being formed. Every means will thus continue to be employed to keep public opposition the key factor for when Armageddon finally draws near, that is if it is not beaten to the gun by the Revolution. Judging by the despair that the sheer triviality the Parliamentary debate has engendered about the place the latter is not such a remote possibility.

One need only conclude by saying the Revolution would not be entirely unwelcome.