CONSTITUTION OF HARBOUR BOARDS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 67, 1 March 1911, Page 5

CONSTITUTION OF HARBOUR BOARDS.

It would be interesting to know what considerations determined the constitution of the Harbour Boards of New Zealand under the Act of last session. It is easy to understand that the number of members composing a Board would vary according to the number of districts and area to be represented, but what is the possible object of giving the payers of dues representation on one Board and not on another? In framing the constitution of a local governing body, there appear to be two leading considerations to be borne in mind. The first is, efficient administration; the second, fair representation of those concerned. In the case of Harbour Boards, there can be no doubt that | to secure the former it is desirable j that mercantile interests should I have special representation; the men representing these interests, being in daily touch with the mat-! ters with which they are called upon to deal when on the Board are Jikelv to take a keener and more Oitelligent interest in the business i of the Board, than those engaged, i in say. farming pursuits. Thisj view of the case appears to have been recognised to some extent in framing the constitution of the new Act for the Auckland, Wellington

and Otago Boards. Each of these boards, composed of fourteen members, gives two seats to shipping interests and one to merchants. The Lyttelton Board, with the same number of members, has only one member to represent shipping and mercantile interests as against three on the Boards first mentioned. If it is good to have three such representatives on the Auckland, Wellington and Otago Boards, why is it better to have only one on the Lyttelton Board ? If it is good that the shipowners and merchants at Lyttelton and Thames should have a joint representative, why, at Gisborne and Bluff, should shipowners only have representatives, to the exclusion of the merchants? If it is good that shipowners should be represented on the Gisborne, Auckland, Wellington, Otago and Bluff Boards, why should they be unrepresented on the Napier, Timaru, Wanganui ana a dozen other Boards? Are these discrepancies accounted for by the personal predilections of pushful members of Parliament or is it the Harbour Board Chairmen who have been making their influence felt?