HARBOUR BOARDS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22296, 23 June 1934, Page 12

HARBOUR BOARDS

In support of a contention that the present constitution of the Otago Harbour Board docs not provide for adequate country representation, Mr R. S. Thompson, himself a country representative on that body, has pointed to the composition of the Lyttelton Harbour Board. It is not readily apparent that • any argument that is entitled to weight is adducible for such a comparison. In respect of representation on harbour boards there is no uniform system throughout the Dominion. There is a different basis of representation for nearly every such authority in New Zealand. The system is full of anomalies, a consequence, it may be supposed, of the differing circumstances in which the boards are placed. Argument from a basis of population and rateable value may make it appear curious that Port Chalmers should be represented on the Otago Board by two members, West Harbour by one, and the country districts by only two members. But it may remain an open question whether representation on the Harbour Board is rightly based on population and rateable value. Clearly enough Port Chalmers and West Harbour are concerned with the affairs of the harbour, on which they are situated, from points of view that do not concern the country districts. The city of Dunedin and the borough of St. Kilda might complain of under-representation in comparison, since between them they elect only five members. The qualification for the Government representation is no doubt considered to lie in the fact that the Government stands behind the harbour boards in respect of their financial commitments and obligations. But the argument that this constitutes a valid reason for the nomination of a Government representative on a board may well appear to be cancelled by the circumstance that the Government pays no dues upon its vessels or upon its imports. The contention that there is undue representation of special interests on the Otago Harbour Board is advanced particularly in regard to shipping companies. Payers of duos on ships elect two representatives, and payers of dues on goods elect one. These, however, are the interests that are most directly concerned in the provision of adequate shipping facilities in the port. All things considered, it must be conceded that the provisions upon which representation on the harbour boards of the Dominion is based show remarkable variation, and have conduced to the creation of anomalies sufficient to warrant the belief that the Harbour Boards’ Association might discuss the position with a view to its improvement.

One consideration should not be overlooked. It is surely important that a harbour board, particularly the controlling authority of such an area as Otago Harbour, should be composed as far as possible of members who have really a knowledge of the matters with which they have to deal. It is not enough that the boards should have their expert advisers. It is desirable that members should have a personal knowledge of local harbour affairs such as is not generally acquired by residence in a rural district.