HARBOUR ADMINISTRATION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 161, 9 July 1910, Page 8

HARBOUR ADMINISTRATION.

HEW BILL DISCUSSED. . ' &. WIDENED M&ANCHISE. J h & r Telegram-—■ Pailiameitary Reporter.) et WEIAINSTON, Friday. : C The Harbour Act Amendment Bill e< was discussed in the louse of Kepre- !' sentatives this evening.) ■ . ~..- ' ' The Minister for Maime (tie Hon. J. £ A.''Malar), in moving ihe second-read- lc ing of -the bill, said th re Bad for some S( (considerable time bee] a feeling that p there -was a need for c.ange in the conetruction of HaTbour Joards. An. ef- a fort was made in this measure to give jjj representation to coun ry districts. He w main provision of the ill, however, -was t] to give a greatly widend franchise, arid c an attempt had been Aade to have the 0 : Parliamentary franchisl extended to the election of Harbour Board members, h It was not considered desirable, how.- & ever, that the change jhould go co far. s ] That which the bill ptposed was that ii the system of nomination winch, had n prevailed at Auckland md elsewhere in ti the past should now give place to a ii method -of election by bfrough or county t council ratepayers. This would come E into force so as to enabb Harbour Board f< elections to take place In the same day a as other local bodies' eletions. E The Minister then ij-oceeded to explain the clauses of th|- bill. He made i> it clear that every eletor vould only c ' have one vote. A manlinight T>e a bor- c ' ough ratepayer and a) county council fl ratepayer, but ho woujd only be able c ' to once exercise the franchise Provi- c sion was made to give the piyers of ~ dues on goods and the payers ii dues .. on ships the right to vote for direct r representation. The right of Cham- c bers of Commerce to elect "special repre- r sentatives had been abolished, as it was ? felt that payers of dues were identical ° with the Chambeie of Commerce in theirj? interests. Westport and Greymouthj would still remain intact a3 nominative boards, and, likewise, county councils? invested with harbour board would remain the same. y A new provision, explained the Minis-?, ter, was that enabling a board to votes to its chairman anything up to £200 per year as an honorarium. Mr. C. H. Poole said he was satisfied that the bill wa9 a great improvement, and was delighted with the opening up of the franchise. He thought, however, that members of the House would like to see the question of representation provided for on even broader lines. The real payers of dues were the consumers, and they should have the direct right of representation. In his opinion it was desirable that even t.he Government nominees should go. He hoped that the measure would find its way on to the Statute Book. Mr. A. El Glover said he regarded the bill as a satisfactory measure. ; He had always advocated a broad franchise, and would like to see the Government proposals go even further. He urged that the waterside workers, with a membership of 1300, should have an equal right to representation with the payers of dues on the Board. Mr. L. R. Phillipps, while approving the general trend of the proposals contained in the measure, said he would prefer to see the Government nominees wiped clean out. Mr. E. H. Taylor also protested against the nominative system and special representation for payers of dues. He characterised the bill as being in its general policy a .truly democratic measure. Sir Joseph Ward said what Harbour Boards had to guard against was extensive launching out on harbour works that would not be required for 50 years. Hence, those responsible for Harbour Board administration in this country would have to exercise more caution, and not commit themselves to heavy expenditure, which necessitated large loans and increased harbour rates. There was also a tendency to disregard the growth and expansion of railway traffic, and to lose sight of the fact that in many cases it meant a deflection of harbour trade. He '.hoped that some of them would be a little more circumspect in regard to their financial undertakings. .■ . . ■ There were nearly a dozen other speakers, nearly all of whom protested against the proposal for giving the Government power to nominate representatives on Harbour Boards. Another important provision was that which exempted boards from any responsibility for accidents due to the mistake of licensed pilots. It was also proposed that no.pilot should be eligible to carry out his work without a license. With regaTd to reclamations, the Minister said it was proposed that the Crown should be able to authorise reclamations provided there was no interference with navigation. In regard to the power proposed to be given to boards to erect freezing works, •etc, it was necessary to make this possible, so as to obviate legal difficulty. Another important clause was that making it possible to fine anyone removing stone/ sand, or shell from foreshores under control of a harbour board: In ; conclusion, Mr. Millar said he presumed the most contentious clause of the bill' was that • regarding •Harbour Board ■contribution. He was against unwieldy Boards, and did not think it would be possible to give wider representa-tion. Auckland and Christchurch would probably give most trouble, but he thought it would be generally admitted that the proposals -were satisfactory. Mr. W. F. Massey said the bill was an important one. He was glad to see that country districts were at last to begiven representation. The counties of .Tiden, Eaglan, Waipa, and "other northern districts had always asked for representation, and he was glad to see that the chance was going to be given to amend the existing anomaly. He did not favour the' Parliamentary franchise in electing Harbour Boards, and he was satisfied that the system proposed would give an excellent representation. He did nob I agree, however, with the" proposal to continue , the system of nominating two Government members., The Auckland Harbour Board could, very well carry on its business without Government nominees. Otherwise, he would be pleased to give the bill his support. Mr. T. E. Taylor said he welcomed the change in the constitution and the election of harbour boards, but he agreed with Mr. Massey that there was -no> good reason for giving-the Government the power to nominate.'. two members to-a board. The day.had gone by for forcing government upon the large cities. Likewise, he wanted to know why a handful of shipowners and a group of payers of dues should each have the right to special representatives. The system of nomination should entirely pass out. After further discussion the bill passed its second reading.