HARBOUR CONTROL

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 50, 28 February 1945, Page 7

HARBOUR CONTROL

SPECIALISED WORK

ASSOCIATION'S VIEWS

Twenty-eight harbour boardc conveyed their views to the Parliamentary Committee on Local Government yesterday, when evidence was submitted by the Harbours Association of New Zealand, through its secretary, Mr. W. J. Gardner. A variety of topics, ranging from amalgamation with other local bodies—not favoured because of the specialised nature of harbour control—to elections, was covered;

The work.of harbour boards was of a special nature, requiring skilled and experienced management and staff, and was not allied to that of any other class of local authority, said Mr. Gardner. Therefore the association considered that the amalgamation of harbour boards with any other local authority would be impracticable. The present method of providing finance for harbour boards appeared to be satisfactory. The Harbours Act provided for exemption from harbour dues of' Government goods not used for commercial purposes. It was submitted that, as harbour boards were required to provide and maintain wharves and port .facilities, all goods using such facilities should pay equal dues. . Local body rates should be continued to be levied on the land, and incomes should not be taxed for local ooay purposes. Harbour boards considered there would be an improvement if a universal system of rating were adopted for similar districtsone system of rating for cities and boroughs and one system for counties. With the present oversight of the Local Government Loans Board there was a protection to ratepayers relating to loan proposals put forward by harbour boards.

Harbour boards were required oy law to obtain legislative authority befor embarking upon any development scheme and any such scheme was subject to review in certain cases by Parliament and in others the consent of the Governor-General in Council must be obtained. Thus, an additional safe-1 guard was provided in the case of harbour boards. BORROWING FROM STATE. ■Generally speaking, the Government could borrow money at a much more favourable rate of interest than local1 bodies, and the loan cost and annual charges to local authorities would be reduced if money could be borrowed by the local authority from the Government, the Government from time to time raising special loans to cover the requirements of such local authorities as might require assistance in that manner. It was advocated by the association that existing legislation be amended, making it lawful for a trustee to invest trust funds in ( the debentures of approved harbour boards. Parliament had already given the required power to some boards, two of which had not rating powers. Although some harbour boards had not the power of rating upon land, their financial position was extremely sound. Trustees having funds for investment were . anxious and willing to invest in harbour board debentures. It was submitted that the power of harbour boards to levy dues! was every bit as effective a means of! raising revenue as the power of a! council or road board to levy rates. i The association was opposed to the legislation, under which an employee1 of a local authority was eligible for election or appointment to the em-! ploying local authority, and advocated its repeal. ! Harbour boards were fairly evenly divided upon the question of the necessity for Government representation upon harbour boards. The Government member, if appointed, should' be in a position to interpret to the board the Marine Department's views I in so far as the board's activities were concerned, ;and so be in the nature of a liaison between the Marine Department and-the board—hot merely an additional representative of the people m the district.

Harbour boards felt keenly the financial loss they suffered owing to the non-payment of harbour dues on Government goods, and - the association considered that Government representation was justified only when financial or other Government assistance was rendered.

ELECTION BY VOTE,

It was not considered that it would be an improvement on the present system for all members of a harbour board to be elected by popular vote. There were different interests who contributed very largely to the revenue of certain harbour boards and it was vitally necessary that those important interests should have seoarate and expert representation. Subject to the comment regarding the Government member, the firm- view of the Harbours' Association was that the constitution of harbour boards was satisfactory and should not be disturbed.

It had been found that in election year the period of time allowed for the election of chairman was insufficient, and it was suggested that the time be extended to June 30. Power should be given to increase the honorarium of a chairman from £200 to £500 where the annual revenue of a board exceeded £150,000. ,

Legislation regarding local body members' contracts was much N too restrictive and prevented many able and qualified men from seeking election to local bodies. It should be sufficient protection for the public if a member concerned in any matter coming before a local body was debarred from taking part in the discussion and from voting on a contract in which he was interested. Provision could also be made for appeal by any member of a local authority to the appropriate Minister of.the Crown for ari inquiry into any case where it was suspected that a member had used his influence to secure a contract.