COUNTRY INTERESTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25801, 23 March 1945, Page 6

COUNTRY INTERESTS

OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD MORE REPRESENTATION SOUGHT The subject of increased representation of country districts was discussed by the Otago Harbour Board at its monthly meeting last night when a let. ter was received from the Vincent County Council asking the board to take any necessary steps to have the council included in the local bodies represented on the board. The secretary (Mr J. Renton) said he had replied that reference to this anomaly had been made at sittings in Dunedin of the Parliamentary Committee on Local Government, the board submitting a recommendation that its constitution should be examined with a view to providing more adequate representation of the country districts of Otago. It had also suggested, the secretary added, that Vincent County and the boroughs should be represented on the board. The chairman (Mr R. S. Thompson) said that for some unknown reason Vincent had been excluded when the constitution of the board was altered in 1911 and the country was given representation. Vincent had never had representation on the board, he added, and it was just as much entitled to it as the Maniototo district or any other. Board’s Rating Power The town clerk of Alexandra (Mr W. J. Russell), writing on the same subject, sought information regarding the status of the district in relation to the board. The secretary stated that he had replied that although the borough of Alexandra, along with the Cromwell borough and Vincent county,, were generally recognised as being within the area served by the port of Otago they had no representation on the Otago Harbour Board. In addition to its recommendation to the parliamentary committee regarding more adequate representation of the country districts, the board had also suggested that Vincent County and the boroughs should have representation. In a subsequent letter, the town clerk of Alexandra said it appeared that so long as the district was unrepresented on the board it was not part of the board’s area and was not subject to the provisions of the Harbour Boards’ Act. If this was so, before making any application for representation, the council desired to know the board’s position in regard to the area being rated. The secretary said he had replied that the Harbour Act, 1923, referred to rates on rateable property levied “where under any Act or ordinance power was given to a board to make and levy a rate for any purpose connected with a harbour.” The Otago Harbour Board, however, had no legislative authority to levy rates on rateable property. The chairman said that the board was not a rating authority, and if the Alexandra borough was given representation it would not have to pay rates to the board. He could not see that the board would ever be required to levy rates if the administration was carried on as it had been in the past. Mr W. Begg said he was sure the board did not object to the Vincent County being given representation, but he did not believe it would agree to the representation of the country districts on the basis suggested by Mr J. Rodman, the counties’ representative, at the sitting of the parliamentary committee in Dunedin. That would mean a flooding of the board with country members. The chairman: There are over 50,000 people in the country districts, and to-day they have two representatives on the board. Surely from a democratic point of view they are entitled to more. financing of Works

Mr H. S. Watson, moving that the letters be received and the replies approved, said that though the board was not a rating authority it would be a simple matter at some date to apply for that authority. The great development works which were planned could not be financed, and there was only one • other source by which the money could be obtained. He was sure, however, that the country people would strongly object to rating, and they were therefore asking for greater representation on the board. He regretted that it had been suggested that the Port Chalmers representation on the board should be halved. It had only two members at present, but had in the past.been responsible for a good deal of the revenue of the Port of Otago. Mr J. Preston, seconding the motion, said that, as a country representative, he believed that the board should not go in for development work until it had the revenue with which to carry on. After further discussion the motion was carried.