HARBOUR BOARD REPRESENTATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14916, 19 August 1910, Page 6

HARBOUR BOARD REPRESENTATION.

STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF MARINE. PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE POSSIBLE. (Fnou Our Own Coreesposdect.) .WELLINGTON, August 18, Replying to-uny to a Canterbury deputation on the subject of representation on the Lyttelton Harbour Board, the Hon. Mr Millar made some observations of general interest. He said he had known when he started with the bill that the trouble would come from Lyttelton and Auckland. Year by year the Lyttelton Board had additions made to it, till its representation had got up to 19 members. If they went on at that rate they would soon get up to 26. The idea of the new bill was to equalise the whole of the boards as far as possible in regard to representation. The endeavour was to keep down the cost of the elections., To do that they had to take the existing boundaries, so that one roll would do. It was quite true that the municipal franchise was a wider franchise than the 'county franchise, and he would have no objection to alter the county franchise in the same direction, but it would mean that new rolls would have to be printed, because they would need a special harbour board roll if women were to get the vote. He would not be surprised to see the parliamentary franchise put in before the bill got through the House. He would go into the qjest-ion of Lyttclton's representation, but he did not'want to see the boards increase in size. Unless they 'could ;>r-, a uniform system of representation lor the boards they might as well' leave them as they were and let the bill go. Fourteen members constitute a big hoard, and expenses would ' ■-!> heavy enough with the representation .uggested. As to representation by the payers of dues, he certainly thought the payers of shipping dues should have representation on the boards. If it were not for the ships their harbours would not be worth a rap. Only (lie other day a master had declined to take his ship up to Auckland because there .was not enough water there. He could ■understand objection to representation of the payers of dues, but not- to representation of the payers of shipping dues. The ship-owners were entitled to direct representation. He proposed to put in the bill a general clause- that would include in a county any borough, town district, or road district not specially exempted. As to Government nominees, personally he was not very particular about that. Otago had four, Lyttelton one, Wellington three, and Auckland two. His idea was to equalise the number all through. He did not care if it was brought down to one—("hear, hear,")—but he would like to retain the principle of having some Government representation on the board. At Lyttelton, for insancc, the Government had a big interest in the harbour because of its expenditure on railways.