HARBOUR BOARD REPRESENTATION.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12588, 19 August 1910, Page 5

HARBOUR BOARD REPRESENTATION.

STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF MARINE.

PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE POSSIBLE.

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

WELLINGTON, August 18. Replying to-day 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 lie -had known when he started with the hill that the trouble* would com© from Lyttelton and Auckland. Year by year, the Lytteltpn.Board had additions made to. it all its representation had got up to 19 members. If they went on at that rate they would soon get up to 2G. Tlie idea of the new Bill was to ccualisa the whole of the boards, as far as possible in regard to representation. This endeavour was to keap down tho cost of tlie elections, and 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 country franchise, and he would have no objection to alter the country franchise in tho same direction ; bat 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 he surprised to see the Parliamentary franchise put in before) the Bill got through the House. He would go into the question of Lyttelton's representation, but he did not want these Boards \o increase in size unless they eouiu get a. xmiform system of representation for the Boards. They might as well leave them as they were, and Jot the Bill go. Fourteen members constituted a big board, and travelling expenses would be heavy enough with the representation suggested. As to representation by the payers of dues, he certainly thought the payers of shipping dwes should have representation on tho Board. If it were not for the ships their harbours were not bo worth a rap. Only the other day a master had do dined 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 shipowners were entitled to direct representation. He proposed to put in the Bill a general cla.uso that would include in a .coimfcy nny borough, town, district, or ;o;id district not specially exempted. As to Government nominees, personally ho was not vcrv particular about that. Otago had 4," Lyttelton 1, Wellington :■!■/ aid Auckland 2. This idea, was no* to equa!ise the number although he did not care if it was broujght down to one—(hear, hear)—but he would like to retain the principle of having some Government i-epresentatic-n on the boards. At Lyttelton, for instance, the Government had a, big interest in the harbour, because of the expenditure on railways.