HARBOUR BOARD ELECTIONS

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 21024, 28 November 1933, Page 18

HARBOUR BOARD ELECTIONS

ALTERATIONS SUGGESTED APPEAL TO MEMBERS OF , PARLIAMENT A request that they should support a movement to have the representation of the people on the Lyttelton Harbour Board altered so that the city representation should be increased by two members and the country representation decreased by two was made to members of Parliament yesterday by the Port Christchurch League. Members of Parliament present were Mrs E. R. McCombs, H. T. Armstrong, and E. J. Howard, and the representatives of the league were Messrs J. Longton (chairman), R. M. Speirs, R. B. Cotton, and R. B. Owen. Mr Longton, in a circular which was submitted to members, claimed that the present representation ali lotted to the greater Christchurch district was unfair. That representation was fixed by the Harbours Amendment Act, 1910, and was based on the population according to the census of 1906, and the rateable values as at March 31, 1909. Since then, said Mr Longton, population had increased more rapidly in Christchurch and adjacent districts than in the rural and more remote parts of the harbour districts, while values had increased in the country more rapidly than in the city. Consequently, the unfairness of the representation allotted under the act had been greatly increased. When the bill was before Parliament, influential deputations went to Wellington to protest to the Government and the Christchurch members against its adoption. Since then other deputations had interviewed Ministers and they and other members of Parliament had been approached with a view to obtaining redress. Bills had been introduced on behalf of the City Council with that purpose in 1913, 1915, 1920, and 1925, and private members' bills had also been introduced. Amendments Sought. The league requested:— (1) That the franchise should be on the basis of parliamentary elections. (2) That the schedule of the 1910 act, grouping the districts for elections of members of the Harbour Board be amended to provide that the separated electorates should have more community of interest, and to give more equitable representation, even on the present basis of population and valuation. (3) That the amendments be made in the Harbours Amendment Bill now before Parliament. In fixing the representation under the present act, the rateable value was taken as being of equal value to the population, said Mr Longton. A» a matter of fact, it was in some districts of considerably more value than population. He quoted figures to show that the county, with a population of 2220, 'had a rateable value of £2,465,165, and the value a head of population was £1844; Ashburton county had a population of 12,510, a rateable value of £11,515,261, and a value a head of population c* £920; Ashburton borough had a population of 5290, its rateable value was £679,788, and the value a hesd of population, £128; Christchurch city, with a population of 88,100, had a rateable value of £28,171,187, and the value a head of population was £320. The figures, which were as at April, 1929, showed that the Amuri district rateable value counted for 15 times as much as the Ashburton borough—and six times as much as the city of Christchurch. The Ashburton county counted three times as much as Christchurch, and eight times as much as the Ashburton borough. Notwithstanding that, said Mr Longton, there was supposed to be equitable and liberal representation. Apparently Inconsistent Population being the sole basis of municipal representation and the principal basis of parliamentary representation, it appeared inconsistent for Parliament to take the rateable value into account for representation' on the Harbour Board, which had no power to levy rates, said Mr Longton. Perhaps the most equitable basis of representation would be in proportion to wharfage dues paid. As greater Christchurch contributed more than 70 per cent, of the wharfage dues paid to the Lyttelton Harbour Board, it would be entitled to nine memberi out of 12. Mr Longton said that on a population basis greater Christchurch, with a population of 125,395, would have a representation of eight, while the other districts, which had a population of 47,555, would have four representatives. Actually the representation was five for greater Christchurch and seven for the other districts, the population to each representative beJE&, 25 .' 000 in greater Christchurch and 6800 in the other districts. On a valuation basis, greater Christchurch *?Jo on* i^ 6 representatives for iJi lir 1 ' an aver age of £10,551,623, while the other districts had seven representatives for £42,446,065, an Z^ g f- ° f £5 : 3 °5.758. OA a basis of population and valuation, under the present grouping, greater Christcntircli had five representatives and the other districts seven, while under the proposd grouping, greater Christc?"rch would h ave seven and th» others five. «^v m < e Tu bers o£ Parliament present said that they were in favour of the proposals, and would do all in their fEShLS 0 ha / Ve th , em Verted in the Harbours Amendment Bill, which tht S innii P K^ ent being considered by the local bills committee of the Housa