HARBOUR CONTROL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 138, 13 June 1934, Page 15

HARBOUR CONTROL.

REPRESENTATION ON BOARD. MR. BLOODWORTH'S VIEWS. When a letter from the Lyttclton Harbour Board was read at yesterday's meeting of the Auckland Harbour Board asking if the latter body -was dissatisfied with the present basis of representation upon it of town, country and payers of dues, the board in committee recommended that a reply to be sent in the negative. Mr. T. Bloodworth said he personally could not agree with the recommendation. The present basis of representation was a relic of antiquity. The Government had its own nominee on the board, but he did not know why, because he (Mr Bloodworth) had never known the Government to bring forward any matter through its nominee or to call upon him for a report. Again, the Government nominee always resided on the North Shore, which really gave the North Shore two representatives. A person who was a payer of dues of only £3 had equal voting with a company paying thousands of pounds. There were two members representing 86 people, while one member represented 20,000. He did not think anybody was entitled to special representation. Mr. C. G. Macindoe said he had been a member of the board for many years and he did not think one member would agree with the view expressed by Mr. Bloodworth. The 80 psople mentioned by Mr. Bloodworth represented thousands of investors, and they were entitled 'to the representation they had because they contributed something like half the board's revenue. In view of the Marine Department being so closely associated with the Harbour »Board, it was only right it should be represented. Mr. W. B. Darlow said he heartily endorsed all Mr. Bloodworth said. He was not antagonistic to the "fancy members," but Mr. Bloodworth on the question of representation was justified in expressing the opinion he did. The recommendation was adopted.