NEW ZEALAND HARBOUR BOARD'S ASSOCIATION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1745, 16 August 1905, Page 21

NEW ZEALAND HARBOUR BOARD'S ASSOCIATION.

ANNUAL CONFERENCE. -IMPORTANT QUESTIONS DISCUSSED. The first annual meeting of the Harbour Boards’ Association of New Zealand was opened in the Chamber of Commerce on Thursday morning, Mr W. Gable,, chairman of the Wellington Board, presiding. The official delegates were:—Auckland—Messrs A. Kidd, F. E. Baume, and E. W. Alison, M.H.R.’s, and J. M. Brigham, secretary. Gisborne—Hon James Carroll and Mr W. D. Lysnar. Greymouth—-Messrs A. R. Guinness, M.H.R., R. Russell, and H. G. Burnett. Hokitika —Hon J. Holmes, M.L.C. Lyttelton Messrs George Laurenson, George Witty, D. Buddo, M.H.R.’s, and C. Hood-Williams. Napier—Messrs J. Vigor Brown, A. E. Jull, and J. P. Kenny. Nelson —Hon A. F. Trask, M.L.C., and Mr J. Graham, M.H.R. New Plymouth—Messrs J. B. Connett and O. Rennell. Oamaru —Hon T. Y. Duncan and Mr J. S. Holmes. Otago—Hons T. Fergus and D. Pinkerton, M.L.C.’s, Messrs E. G. Allen, M.H.R., and J. Blair Mason. Patea— Messrs C. E. Major and W. Symes, M.H.R.’s. Thames—Messrs E. W. Alison and W. H. Herries, M.HJh s. Timaru —Messrs F. R. Flatman,M.H.R., and J. Fraser. Waitara—Mr W. T. Jennings, M.H.R. Wanganui Mr J. B. Murray. Wellington—The chairman of the conference and Messrs H. Beauchamp, J. McLelian, and William Ferguson. Westport—Messrs J. Suisted, James Colvin, and R. McKenzie, M.H.R.’s, and the Hon R. J±. o • Reeves, M.L.C. The chairman stated that out of twenty-three Boards m the colony, nineteen had joined the association. Ihe ftnancial position was satisfactory. There was about £6O to credit of the bank account, and there were the cost of drafting the Superannuation Bill and some small accounts to meet. Subscriptions to the amount of £96 were due m October. The absence of the Bluff Harbour Board delegates was due to a dredge function arranged for yesterday at the Blmff, not to any lack of interest in the business of the association. DRAINAGE INTO HARBOURS. The executive recommended■ -“That the Government he asked to afford to all Harbour Boards the same protection which the Otago Harbour Boam now has by section 36 of the Dunedin District Drainage and Sewage Act Amendment Act, 1902, whereby the Dunedm Drainage Board is restrained from establishing any system of drainage by which sewage or solid matter of any kind may be discharged into the Otago Harbour.” The following remits dealing with the same subject were bracketed with the foregoing recommendation: That in view of the differences existing and likely to arise between Harbour Boards and City and Borough Councils in regard to the question of sewage silt and refuse being discharged from city and borough drains into harbours, whereby insanitary conditions and damage to such harbours are caused it is desirable that the association should take action as may be found necessary to meet the case—(Lyttelton Board). That provision be made in the Harbours Acts giving Harbour Boards power to prevent any system of drainage being established by which sewage or solid matter of any kind is discharged into the harbour or on to the foreshore under the jurisdiction of the Board. —(Timaru Board.) There was a long discussion on the matter, and it was eventually agreed, on the motion of Mr E. W. Alison and Mr A. R. Guinness, “That, in the opinion of this conference, it is desirable that power be vested in Harbour Boards to prevent the establishment of any system of drainage by which sewage or solid matter is discharged from city or borough drains into harbours or on to foreshores under the control of a Harbour Board, whereby insanitary conditions and damage to such harbours are caused or may be caused.*’

LABOUR QUESTIONS. The executive recommended, That, if the Shipmasters’ Association of New Zealand cite any affiliated Harbour Board before the Arbitration Court, the Harbours’ Association support it in resisting them, and in contesting a case to decide whether or not the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act applies to harbourmasters, pilots, and tug and dredge-masters. The chairman explained that it had been threatened by the Shipmasters’ Association to take Boards before the Court in regard to the wages of harbourmasters, pilots, etc. Mr Laurenson opposed the recommendation. which was carried on the voices. It was further agreed, on the recommendation of the executive:—That in any amendment of the Shops and Offices Act the Government be requested to insert a clause exempting Harbour Boards from the operation of the act. (The executive, on the 26th May last, waited on the Minister of Marine, and laid this recommendation, inter alia, before him.) AMENDING LEGISLATION. “That, in view of the promise of the Minister of Marine (made to a, deputation of the executive on the 26th May last) to, if possible, submit to the executive the draft of the proposed bill amending the Harbours Acts, it is inadvisable to take any further action at present in regard to the resolution passed at the last conference £ that the solicitor be instructed to draft a hill giving effect to the required amendments of the law.’ ” This recommendation of tihe executive was considered with remits from . a number of Boards urging that further action should be taken in regard to previous resolutions that were not to be included in the consolidating and amending bill. The motion was canned. LOCAL ELECTIONS. It was agreed on the motion of the Gisborne delegates, “ That section 7 of the Local Elections Act, 1904, be amended so as to extend .the time within which an election shall be held to not less than twenty-eight days for an ordinary vacancy after the returning officer has given public notice of the vacancy, and not less than ten nor more than fourteen after nomination of candidates; consequential amendment to be made to section 39.” GOVERNMENT AND WHARFAGE DUES. The following remit was brought down by the Greymouth delegates, “ That wharfage and harbour dues be paid on goods belonging to the Government or Government officials, or (in the alternative) on goods owned by the Government, but intended for sale.” Mr A. R. Guinness, M.H.R., said if the Government went into competition with private concerns, he did not see why it should not be placed in the same position as other people. The motion was duly seconded. There was a good deal of discussion, and not a little opposition, and an amendment to add the word “vessels” to the motion. This attempt was not persisted imMr McLelian said it was only a question of taking the money out of one pocket and putting it into another. Eventually the remit was passed as introduced, the Minister of Lands (the Hon T. Y. Duncan) dissenting. The following remit from Greymouth was adopted on the voices : That the attention of the association be drawn to the fact that the Government has refused to pay to the Greymouth ■ana Westport Harbour Boards the rents, royalties, and harbour dues which, under section 20 of the State Coal Manes Act, 1901, it is clear were intended to be paid. _ T ... , Another renut, from Wellington, “That Government departments should pay storage and other charges for services rendered,” was affirmed. JURISDICTION OF HARBOUR BOARDS. ‘That tidal waters adjoining harbours be vested in Harbour Boards.” The Whangarei delegate moved this remit. The Minister of Lands asked how this would affect people at the Hutt, for instance. The river was affected a long way up by the tides, and if control was handed over to the Harbour Board, he asked how private individuals, who had taken steps to protect themselves from floods, etc., would fare. It would result in dual control. Mr Ferguson suggested that the remits should be altered in the direction of providing that lands covered by tidal waters within the limits of harbours, and not otherwise owned or alienated, should he vested in Harbour Boards. The Hon James Carroll * suggested that the whole clause should be struck out. (Hear, hear.) On a division, the suggestions of Mr Ferguson, which were submitted as an amendment, were carried by a large majority. RATING LANDS. The conference almost unanimously refused to affirm the following remit from Greymouth:—That where any Harbour Board has included among its endowments waste lands which it is unable to lease, such lands shall not be ratable by any local body until they are revenue-producing.

DELEGATES’ EXPENSE©. Mr Connett (New Plymouth) moved: —That, seeing that all the Harbour Boards in New Zealand benefit by the business done at the meetings of the executive of the association, the expenses of delegates attending these meetings he paid by the association, and not by Boards who have such delegates on the executive. Mr Ferguson (treasurer) said if the remit was agreed to, there was not the slightest doubt the subscription to the association would have to be increased. Mr A. R. Guinness thought the remit was a very proper one to affirm. The remit was affirmed. METHODS OF ELECTION. The Thames delegates submitted the following remit:—That a determined stand be taken against the proposal to elect members of Harbour Boards by popular franchise. Mr Laurenson said he thought it was hardly necessai-y to pass the resolution. Some drastic change was necessary in the method of appointing members of Harbour Boards throughout the colony. Different systems operated in different, districts at the present time. He had no doubt numbers of Boards would not offer the slightest objection to election by popular franchise, and he believed that a proportion of nineteen out of twenty of the sitting members would, be returned under that principle. He thought the matter might well be passed over. Mr Ferguson thought some determination should be arrived at as to whether delegates approved of what he might term the substitution of technical for popular knowledge on the Boards. Mr Beauchamp considered the con-., ference should enter a protest against any proposal to elect Harbour Boards on popular franchise, and re-affirm the schedule of representation agreed on by the last conference. The Hon James Carroll was of opinion that no resolution on the subject was necessary. The association had already dealt -with the subject, and there was no immediate occasion to reiterate the views which had already been put forth. After a number of delegates had expressed their disapproval of election by popular franchise, and a minority had approved the principle, the discussion drifted into a general demand for a mere uniform and satisfactory method of appointment than the present system of nomination. Mr Beauchamp moved an amendment embodying his previous suggestions. He said that, so far as the Wellington Harbour Board was concerned, the members nominated by County Council had proved in many instances the very best members they had. Mr McLelian approved these statements. Finally Mr Alison altered the remit in the direction of protesting against any proposal to elect members of Harbour Boards on popular franchise. This was agreed to on the voices, and Mr Beauchamp said he would not press his amendment, as he considered the subject had been sufficiently ventilated. NOTICES OF MOTION. The following notices of motion, to be discussed, next morning, were than handed in:— Mr A. E. Jull: That similar provision be made in the Harbours Act as is contained in section. 68 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1900, in respect to members voting on matters in which they have a personal interest. Mr George Witty: That this meeting is of opinion that members of Harbour Boards should be elected by ratepayers in counties, and from a municipal franchise roll in boroughs and cities, all ex officio and nominated members to be done away with. A motion was submitted 'by the Auckland delegates seeking certain alterations in a recommendation of the association touching the basis of representation of Boards which have no rating powers. • Mr Beauchamp said the remit should he rejected. Mr Baume thought the matter should not be passed over lightly. The question was a very important one, and the discussion on the matter should not be shirked. After some discussion, it was agreed that the matter should stand over until this morning. OTHER MOTIONS. The following recommendations of the executive were agreed to: — “That no further action be taken in the matter of the incorporation of the association. “ That, as they see no prospect of obtaining legislation for the establishment amongst Harbour Boards of a co-opera-tive accident insurance scheme, Harbour Boards should seriously consider the desirableness of becoming their own insurers. “ That section 215 of the Harbours Act, 1878, be amended to provide powers to Harbour Boards to make bylaws to control bathing from beaches or in harbours.” A number of remits from Auckland seeking to make amendments in certain resolutions passed by the last conference were all rejected on the voices. It was agreed that consideration of the draft Superannuation Bill for Harbour Board employees should stand over until 10 a.m. next day.

SECOND DAY. The conference of the Harbour Boards’ Association of Neiv Zealand resumed its sitting in the Chamber of Commerce on. Friday, Mr W. Cable (Wellington) presiding. The first business of the day was consideration of the draft bill eiiibod/iurf. the proposals of -the executive for a superannuation scheme for employees of Harbour Boards throughout the colony. Mr Cable suggested that the bill (a summary of which appeared in the “Times yesterday) should be considered in committee, and this was agreed to. On resuming, it was reported that the following motion had been carried: — That this conference approves the creation of a superannuation fund, and that the bill prepared by the executive be referred to a committee, with power to amend same, and report to ths various Bevards, and that the committee obtain from the actuary (if possible supported by the Government Actuary) a statement as to the difficulties raised during the discussion on the bill, and forward such statement to the various METHODS OF ELECTION. The remit from Auckland (consideration of which was postponed the previous day), seeking to make certain alterations in a motion passed at the last conference, touching the basis of representation for Boards, was lost on the voices. Mr Witty (Lyttelton) then moved—- “ That this meeting is of opinion that members of Harbour Boards should be elected by ratepayers in counties, and from a municipal franchise roll in. boroughs and cities, and That ex-officio and nominated members be done away with.” Mr Jennings said he would support the motion if Mr Witty would acoept a proviso “that this would not affect Boards which have no rating powers.” Mr Witty objected to do this. Mr Ferguson (Wellington) said the discussion was irregular. They had previously reaffirmed a resolution passed last year. This motion traversed that resolution. After some discussion, it was agreed that Mr Jull should be allowed to read an amendment he had. prepared in the following terms: —That in lieu of the representation as provided by the Harbours Act, 1878, and the various special acts, the following basis be recommended :—ln respect of Harbour Boards nob having rating powers the provisions, as passed by the conference last year, be reaffirmed, with a minimum and maximum number of members; in respect to Harbour Boards having rating powers, a minimum and maximum number of members to be provided; the Board to have power to vary from time to, time, within the limits prescribed, the number of representatives and the boundaries of the subdivisions of the district having regard to the ratable value and the population thereof; the representations to, be upon a ratepayers’ basis, Mr Lysnar seconded Mr Jull’s motion, which was lost by a big majority. Mr Witty’s motion was then further discussed. Mr E. W. Alison (Auckland) said Mr Witty represented a Board which had no rating powers, and he now proposed to do something whioh affected Boards which had. Mr James McLelian (Wellington's asked how it was possible for a Board like Wellington, whose district extended up to Manawatu, to get a representative for each of these districts? Mr Witty: Quite easily. Mr McLelian maintained that it waa impossible. Mr Ferguson (Wellington) was satisfied that if any such system as that desired was introduced they would nob have the same class of member returned they had now. It was wrong for Air Witty to move the motion he had; the present system had been productive of very good results. The work of compiling the roll for such an election would be very difficult and very costly. He quite agreed that- there should be representation.proportionate to taxation, providing always that the payers of dues had primary representation on the Boards. Mr Buddo contended that there was no difficulty in the compilation of the r °Mr Lysnar agreed with Mr Ferguson that where there was taxation there should be representation. But the Government paid no rates, and should not retain the power to nominate members. He had been elected without any difficulty. . Mi* Buddo: Then you are m favour of this ? Mi- Lysnar: No (Laughter.) Delegates: Things are getting mixed! Mi- Lysnar then got Mr Witty to alter his motion for the retention of members appointed by the Government, and the proposition was put to the conference in the amended form. The motion w'as lost by a very large majority. PERSONAL INTERESTS. The following remit brought down by tlie Napier delegates was affirmed:—“That similar provision be made, in the Harbours Act as is contained in section 68 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1900, in respect to members voting on matters in which they have a personal interest.”

LEASING POWERS. The following remit from Dunedin was formally moved:—“That the Local Bodies Leases Bill., as introduced by the Hon Sir J. G. Ward, and now before Parliament, be taken into consideration by this conference.” In the discussion which, followed, Mr Ferguson (Wellington) said it seemed to Juan that the bill, as brought down, aimed at taking away from Harbour Boards some of the powers they at present possessed. It would be well to the Government not to alienate those powers. The bill was a very useful one except in this respect. Mr Brigham (Auckland) endorsed these views. Considerable discussion followed. Eventually, Mr Stephens (Dunedin) moved: That provision be inserted in the Local Bodies Leases Bill to the effect that it shall not apply to any local authority until so applied, by proclamation of the Governor-in-Council, made at the request of the local authority, and that in the meantime the acts affecting such local authority remain in force, and that the hill be referred to the Executive, with power to suggest other necessary amendments. The original remit was discarded in favour of the foregoing motion, which was carried unanimously. This concluded the business of the conference. The findings of the committee cet up to consider the Superannuation Bill will he placed before individual Boards in due course.