WELLINGTON HARBOUR BOARD

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1536, 7 August 1901, Page 61

WELLINGTON HARBOUR BOARD

AFTERNOON’S DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE.

The Wellington Harbour Board monopolised considerable attention in the House of Representatives on the 30th ult. First of all, Mr Fisher asked if the Government Avould this session introduce a Bill to afford redress to th.os e persons resident in the city of Wellington Avhose land had been compulsorily taken by the Wellington Harbour Board?

The Premier said he had no doubt that an injustice had. occurred to some of th e landoAvners, but the question oP e ned up was a large one—it practically meant an appeal from the Arbitration Court. He thought the best Avay to deal with it would be to introduce a local Bill at the instance of the landowners. The Premier then animadverted upon the action of the Wellington Harbour Board in the matter of the Grainger street reserve. He alleged that Parliament had been grossly deceived by the Board in connection with the Bill Avhich had been passed. The Board had got the land for making a dock, and av«s now making of it a business speculation. A more mons'.rous thing had neA T er been perpetrated upon the colony. Mr Hutcheson objected that the Premier was introducing debatable matter to Avhich no reply could be then made. After a feAV remarks had passed across the table between the Premier and Mr Hutcheson, the latter interjected that the Wellington Harbour Board, s.o far from making money, was likely to lose £30,000 by the dock site. Mr Hutcheson, on the third reading of the Wellington Harbour Board Act, 1879, Amendment Bill, protested against what he termed the *• astounding statement ” of the Premier.

The Speaker said that Mr Hutcheson was not entitled to refer to a past debate.

Mr Hutcheson said that he would take another opportunity of referring to a statement which was not only umvarranted, but absolutely at variance with fact.

Mr Seddon repeated that the object of the Bill of 1898 had not been carried out. The Harbour Board, after having cleared out certain people, were now; going to let the land to other people. Mr Tanner : Without making provision for the people ejected ? . Mr Seddon : Without making provision for the people ejected. Mr Massey : That is exactly what you are doing under the Lands‘for Settlement Act. The, Premier : We are not. We are

doing it for the purpose of putting popple on the land. Mr Atkinson: That is what they ar© doing. The Premier said that if the Board, were doing that, Parliament had been deceived, because the Bill provided that the land was to be used for the purposes of a dock. If members had been told that the Board intended to put people on the land, they A\ r ould not have passed the Bill. This would make Parliament careful as to the legislation they passed for local bodies. He had nothing to withdraw of what he had said, and he should have something more to say on the subject. Mr James Allen said that the Grainger street block had been cleared in order that the streets might be widened, and a slum removed—an observation which, roused Mr Georg© Fisher, who protested that the Harbour Board was deriving profits out of this land which ought to belong to the poor people who were turn, ed off the block. Mr Pirani then had a tilt at Mr Fisher, ivho had,, he said, supported the Bill which he had denounced day. Mr Fisher was understood the matter saying that he &ad supported the second reading, according to custom when local Bills were before the House.

The next episode in the debate Avas some fresh sparring between Mr Sedd,on and Mr Hutcheson. The Premier said that in the Legislative Council the Bill of last year had been altered, so that power Avas given to take certain land for street-widening purposes. The provisions of schedule Bof th e Act had nothing to do with the dock. It had been stated that the power given in the Act was used to remove an eyesore from the city of Wellington; and he could only say that the man was just as bad who allowed his name to be used for a fraud as the man was wh© used it. Mr Hutcheson retorted that there was an inviolable agreement between the Government and the Harbour Board empowering the Board to alter the railway and the road in order that the dock might go up to the site now occupied -by the railway. He spoke of an owner Av.ho claimed £IO,BOO, and was awarded £I2OO by the Compensation Court. The Premier, explaining a remark made earlier in the day as to the introduction of a Bill, said that what he meant was that the landowners had th© right to approach Parliament if their case was just, and Parliament ought not to take sway that right from them. A curious position occurred when th© Question was put. The question “ That the Bill he noAV read a third time” Avas negatived, Mr George Fisher having moved for the recommittal of the measure so that clause 5 might be amended to provide for a representative of wharf labourers to sit on the Board. A further amendment then moved for the recommittal of claus© 7; hut this amendment was lost by 32 votes to 27. Then the amendment to recommit clause 5 was lost by 40 votes to 19. Mr Wilford, who is in charge of the Bill, suggested that the third reading should be taken at once, and ,this view seemed to meet Avith the approval of members generally, but. the Speaker ruled that the House had already negatived the motion “ That the Bill be now read a third time,” and accordingly there was nothing for it but to make the third reading of the Bill an order of th e day for Thursday. ,