WELLINGTON DOCK BILL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 986, 29 November 1910, Page 6

WELLINGTON DOCK BILL.

In moving the second reading of the Wellington Harbour .Board Empowering Bill, in the Legislative Council j'esterday, the Attorney-General outlined the position of affairs at some length. The Bill, said Dr. Findlay, was vital to the interests of Wellington port, and vital.to tho interests of Wellington city. He would ask tho Council to have no hesitation in releasing tho local body from the obligations placed on it. The question was, "Aro you or are you not going to compel the board to proceed with a work which is fraught with disaster?" The Hon. C. M. Luke (Wellington) seconded tho motion pro forma, and urged that a dock was a necessity. Ho asked whether Wellington was going to tako the nosition of a third-rate port when Nature endowed her with facilities which should make her the foremost.' The Hon. W. C. F. Carncross (Tara-. naki) had nothing to say against the principle of the Bill. He did not think, however, that the' rights of sub-contrac-tors were sufficiently protected. The case ho hod in mind was the sub-contractor who was to supply the gravel for the contract. „,,.,,, ~ The Hon. T. K. Macdonald expresseil ,thn hope that tho Attorney-General would pay attention to the request that was made. It was only right that delay should tako place, but the Harbour Board had deliberately accepted a position which it was unable to logically affirm. Tho Attorney-General said the question was whether the Bill as it stood protected existing rights. Tho Bill was not framed to work illegal hardship on .anyone but it. did not create any new rights. Ho thought Sub-Clauso 2 of Clause 4 fully saved existing rights. If tho sub-clause did not, in the opinion of some members, sufficiently protect legal rights, he was quito prepared to defer it and refer it to tho Crown Law Office. The second reading was agreed to, and the Bill was sot down for committal today.