FOUR OR SIX?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17013, 11 April 1923, Page 7

FOUR OR SIX?

HARBOUR BOARD REPRESENTATION. THE CITY’S SHARE Tlie Harbour Improvement Committee reported as follows to-day to the Lyttelton Harbour Board : —‘* Your committee after careful consideration of tbe tabulate.! statements prepared by the secretary showing the population and capita! value of tho districts represented on the board when the Harbour Amendment Act, 1910, was passed, and of the districts represented after the inclusion in the city of Sprevdon, Papamii, and Bromley, and after consideration of the resolution on this matter sent by the Christchurch City Council to the Hon the Minister for Marine asking for tlie increase of live: city representatives from four to six members, begs to recommend : —- “ That this board considers that tho present representation on tlie board is fair and just, and “That i copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Minister for Marine.” The chairman moved that the clause should be adopted. Mr H. T. Armstrong, M.P., said he wris opposed to the recommendation. No one could say that Christchurch had proper representation on the board. If certain members of the board thought tho suggestion for increased iepresentation came from the Port Christchurch League, they were wrong. Even if it did, that was no reason w*hy it should not be- given full consideration. On a ixipulation basis. Christchurch should have eight or nine representatives on the board instead of four, but all the City Council asked was six. The idea of assessing representation on the basis of capital value was something like one hundred years out of date. The recommendation before the board was ridiculous. No Government in the British Empire stood for tlie idea of representation on a capital value basis, and the New Zealand Government, whatever party wns in power, would not he influenced hy the recommendation. He moved that the- clause 'should be Struck out. Dr Thacker seconded Mr Armstrong’s amendment.

Hie Hon R. Moore said that the board was a business institution and it wa.s only fair that those who found the money to curvy on the business of the board should have fair, representation. The country districts did not have more representation than they were entitled to. They provided the bulk of the exports. Representation on a. population basis was all right for most local bodies, but not for tlie Lyttelton Harbour Board. The suggestion that the board was making itself ridiculous was not worth taking notice of. Mr Armstrong : Don’t take nodice of it, then. J.fc is a tact-, ail the same. Mr Moore: It is absurd to say so. Mr H. Holland supported Mr Armstrong’s remarks, which he said were logical and conclusive. The xountrv members of the board had never neglected the town for the sake of the country, but it was time, nevertheless, that Christchurch had more equitable representation. I he chairman (Mr J. Storry) said that the board was not hundreds of years be hind the time. The basis of representation for election to the board was one ratepayer one vote, and it .was tlis same m other Harbour Board districts. Mr Armstrong: li you are going tc deal with ratepayers instead of population. our arguments for increased re presentation for Christchurch are stronger. Mr R. Galbraith asked why Dun edin, a much smaller town, had five representatives on the Otago Harbour Board. The chairman -. I cannot say. Prop ably there were special circumstances in Dunedin. In reply to a question, the secretary said that at the next election residents of Bromley, Papauui and "Woolston would vote 'for city representatives on the board and not for country repreThacker: Well, the effect of that 3s that tlie country districts or combined districts will have more representation than they are entitled to. lew er people are to have the same representation as that which existed prior :o amalgamation. Mr Galbraith said that after looking •ip the records lie found, that Wellington city had similar representation to Christchurch city. He, therefore, could r.ot see his way to supoprt the amcnd]l Mr W. .J. Walter said that Christchurch did not hare fair representation. It was growing steadily and yet no provision was made to give extra, rc presentation. Air R. Macartney said he held, considering that the representative of payers of dues was virtually a city representative. that Christchurch had adequate representation. Replying. Mr Armstrong said that Christchurch city and suburbs had as many, if not more, ratepayers than th© whole of the rest of the Harbour Board district. The amendment was defeated by eight votes to four and tlie motion adopting the recommendation of the committee was carried. Mesrs Holland, Walter and Armstrong and Dr Thacker voted for tbe amendment.