HARBOUR AMENDMENT BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 271, 15 November 1910, Page 4

HARBOUR AMENDMENT BILL.

AN INJUSTICE TO AUCKLAND. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELIU«3TON, Tuesday. When the second reading of the Harbours Amendment BiU was before the Council last night, the Hon. W. Beehan contended tihat there should be two .Government nominees on each of ■the four principal Harbour Boards, for the reason that the Government was interested in defence and other works in these ports. He also considered that Auckland was being unjustly treated in having allotted only three members from the City and Grey Lynn. As showing ihow an inequality may he said it was possible for Grey Lynn to return ■three members, leaving the city barren of direct representation. The country element also dominated the city interest in the proposed constitution of the Boaxd and the schemes undertaken by the Auek-' land BoaTd may now be controlled by men 200 miles sway. Mt. Beetoan further suggested that in view of the size of the city, the Auckland Board ehouid have two more members than the other chief boards.

The Attorney-General replied that the measure wa® a reasonable compromise, and had been generally approved. As the Bill had not provoked an indignation meeting in Auckland, it could not be a bad bill, because Auckland could be depended upon to make its objections felt in the mo3t forcible way possible. If t3ie schedule was altered, the bill might be blocked. The second reading was agreed to.