HARBOUR CONTROL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22295, 22 June 1934, Page 7

HARBOUR CONTROL

CONSTTIUTION OF BOARD CLAIMS OF tOUNTRY DISTRICTS EXISTENCE OF SECTIONAL INTERESTS ; ; Serious doubt whether the constitution of the Otago Harbour Board gave fair representation to all sections of the community was raised at the monthly meeting of the board last nitibt. A strong claim for better, representation of the country districts was made, and the course of the discussion revealed a fairly general opinion that" the existence of sectional interests acted against the best interests of the board, members expressing the view that control by commission would b" the most satisfactory method. "••,'' . ;■ .■ The debate arose out of a letter from the Lyttelton Board intimating that it had appointed a special committee to examine and report upon the'whole question, of, the representation on the board of it* various constituent' and combined district* and the payers of dues, #nd also to .report upon the possibility of improving the franchise under which the various elections were conducted. The main questions which the Lyttelton Board asked, with the suggested replies of the chairman and secretary of the Otago Board, were as follows: ■ Is your board dissatisfied with the present basis of representation upon it of town, Country, and payers of dues?— This question has not been under consideration for some time, and, it cannot be said that the board is actively dissatisfied with the present position, although it is recognised that the existing distribution, particularly upon a population and rateable value basis, is far from .being equitable from a representation point or view. '..''.. Haa your board under consideration any proposals -for amending its. representation?—This board is of the opinion that any agitation for an alteration in the present representation should be by general public demand and should not originate from the board itself; and accordingly until there is such a demand it is not proposed to take any action.

..COUNTRY REPRESENTATION Mr R. S. Thompson said that the reason why there had not been a general demand for an alteration in the constitution ot the Otaga board was that the public did not realise the position. New Zealand prided itself upon being democratic, but no one could say that representation on the board was based on any democratic, principle. The proposed reply did not go far enough. In view of the fact that country representation was so small in comparison with population and rateable value, an alteration was long overdue. Port Chalmers, with a population of 2570, had two members, or one member for each 1285 of the population, whereas the country districts bad only two represeutatives for a population of over 46,000. That in itself was sufficient to show that the constitution of the board was entirely wrong. West Harbour, with a population of 2100, had one representative. This : clearly showed that there was class representation on the board. . His remark evoked a storm of protest, but Mr Thompson replied. " I am certain there is." He afterwarfls amended the statement, however, by stating that there was group representation. " There are representatives for special districts'," he added, " and I fail to see why they should be here.". If they went into the question of rateable value, they would find that Port. Chalmers, with a value of £384;000, had two members, while only one. .country member represented a rateable value of* nearly £lo>ooo,ooo. He persisted that the position was entirely wrong. The constitution of the Lyttelton Board had. been devised to give equal representation on/-a basis o'f papulation *nd capital value. On a board of 14 there were eight country representatives,, four p representatives, of by the Gov-ernor-General, and one representing the 'payers of dues. "The shipping companies had no representative, but on the Otago board ithey had' two. He agreed that the companies should have a representative, biitvon the. Otago Board they had one representative too many. Actually Lytt«HotiVßorough had no, special representative oil i the -Lyttelton Board, but, and boroughs, it elected %nevinei)ab'er who represented a population'' of 16,060. '.'■'■■ The four Christchureh members represented a .total population of 90,700,, ' The Otago Board should go further-ih its reply.." - No fair-minded individual would question a request that the Harbour Boards' Association be asked to investigate the constitution of the various harbour boards, with a view to requesting that the Government should give every section of the community equal representation on the boards. The 'chairman (Mr H. C. Campbell): You had better bring that forward as a , fresh resolution. It is not in order at 'present."-" I Mr H. E.Moller (to Mr-Thompson): well smjle. You nearly got : a way ..with it. ' ■■■;. Mr A. Campbell:" You won't get away •* ••,/ ./ -.,. i>tMri:Thompson (to Mr Campbell): 1 • realise'-that you won't let me get away ; with-'iti »I will give notice of motion. r Mr,"Thompson added that the country people provided half the board's revenue. It was ridiculous that, with their very laree interests, they should have only two representatives on the board. : S Mr-T." Scollay asked why Mr Thomp.son had not already taken steps to have .ihe :.matter rectified. The board as a whole had no objection to larger representation from the country. " >

I SECTIONAL INTERESTS / ilr J. Loudon: It" would be a good thing if the whole board;were abolished H far ag sectional interests are concerned. '.sl'he chairman: Are you not getting awaj? from the'6ubject?: - It is for the board to approve or otherwise deal, with the proposed reply. 11: A. Campbell moved that the reply

be adopted. Mi R. Duncan said that he would second the motion.if a clause were added asking i cthose who hid brought up the \ Jfiattter. to carry it to'the Harbours' Association with a view to having, representa- • tiiri on all boards placed on the same basis. He added, that so far as the Otago Board was concerned what was a suitable institution 60 years ago might not be suitable at present. ■>.Mr Loudon, who on this occasion was allowed to continue his remarks, said that it would', be a good thing for the board, if all sectional franchise was done away with. Surely five men could be obtained who would be able to conduct the affairs of the board with due regard to the interests of the community. "On this board," he added, " a tremendous amouut • of-friction has been caused by one section &shting against another. What Mr Thompson says is perfectly true. The country seems to be under-represented. 1 believe that we shall never get the work done for the good of the community until the.board is free of sectional representaX Mr F. Jones, M.P., agreed that there was a good deal in what Mr Thompson had said. The number of people represented by the members of the Lyttelton board ranged from 8810 to 22,625. In Otago the , number ranged from 1285 to 25,840. He claimed that the waterside workers were as much entitled to representation on the board as the shipping companies and the payers of dues. He also agreed that the public welfare suffered while there was a clash of interest. Special representation should be eliminated. EXTENT OF COUNTRY INTEREST Mr Moller said that it was all very well for Mr Thompson to bring Port Chalmers into the question. Port Chalmers was a port, which had a.great interest in the harbour. "All the country people want, %e-declared, "is to get their goods for nothing, and those in the city do the work." ■- Mr. Thompson: You are entirely wrong. lam surprised at you. ~' . " The proper place for this discussion is the Harbour Association," said Mr J. B. Waters. "When you take up the regulations governing the franchise you find that it is full of anomalies. At the same time the- best method of control is not by representation on a population basis, but by paid commissioners." The inherent weakness of democracy, he continued, was that those, who were placed in control were . not organisers, but talkers. The men who

talked and promised most were those who were put into office and not those who were the best organisers. The chairman reminded membeis that the* constitution of the Port of London Authority, which had done great workj was similar to that of the boards in New Zealand. Mr W. Begg said that Mr Thompson had been fully justified in bringing the matter forward, and Mr Moller had been hardly < fair to him. He reminded Mr Moller that at Lyttelton, which was the only port in the harbour, did not even have a representative of its own. Mr Scollay: There is only one port there and we have two. Mr Begg responded with heat that the members should act as the Otago Board and not as the representatives of two ports. The sooner members got that into their heads the better they would get on. When Mr Thompson rose to speak again the chairman told him that he had already spoken, but Mr Begg pointed out that Mr Thompson's previous statement had been made before the motion was moved. ' Mr Thompson was then allowed to speak. He protested against Mr Moller'* statement and claimed that the Lyttelton board, with eight country representatives, was one of the most successful in New Zealand. Mr A. Campbell: They must be better people. Mr Thompson added that in his opinion the Otago board would be in a better position than it was to-day if it had had eisht country representatives for the last 20 yeare. Mr Jones: Is that why the present Government is so good? Mr A. Campbell, in the course of his reply, claimed that the Port Chalmers representatives had never been parochial in their outlook. No one, he said, would object to two or three more country members having seats on the board. If the board had had more country members, however, it would be further hack than' it was. Mr Thompson: No. Mr Campbell: I am as much entitled to my opinion as you are. He aereed that the best policy was for boards to be governed by commisr sions. dues in all ports beine fixed at thf> "same rates. The. motion, with th» addition suggested by Mr Duncan m« n^nn+pd.