HARBOURS BILL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 38, 8 November 1907, Page 6

HARBOURS BILL.

DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD,

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS,

A special meeting of tho Harbour Board was hold yesterday afternoon, the chief matter discussed being the proposed now: Harbours Bill. There were present Hon. T. K. Macdonald (chairman), Messrs. T. W. Hislop, J. M'Lellan, H. Beauchamp, W. T. Wood, M.H.R,.;, G. Shirtcliffe, R. Fletcher, T. M. Wilford,-M.H.R,;, and F. H. Fraser. SUGGESTIONS BY THE .SECRETARY. Tho secretary (Mr. Ferguson) presented an exhaustive memorandum dealing with the schedule. After sotting out the proposed constitution, ho stated:—"ln place of the member elected jointly by the payers of dues of £10 and upwards,. together with the owners of. ships registered in the port of Wellington, two members are to be elected, one by the payers of duos other than those on ships of £3 and upwards, and one by, tho payers of harbour dues on ships to the amount of £3 and. upwards. The wording of the schedule relating to these members ought to be amended by the deletion of the words "and out of." As theduos inrespect to ships are nearly all, if not entirely, paid by companies . and. not by . individuals, it would be wrong to limit the "selection of a member to. those few individuals who. pay shipping dues. Similarly, but to a lesser degree, it appears undesirable' that. the voting powers of payers of duos on goods should bo restricted to the, individual who is actually paying the 'dues on his own behalf and that companies .should be dis.franchisod. In respect to tlie Wairarapa Manawatu districts, whilst in connection with tho Wairarapa counties; provision is made for tho further subdivision of the district by tho constitution of fresh' counties or boroughs; no similar provision, is made in respect to the Manawatu Counties, which appears to bo an oversight that should bo remedied. . . It is also pointed out that the system adopted in the sohedulo of giving separate representation to the electors of tho boroughs contained in "tie country districts _ as apart from'■ the'•: electors of the counties in which they are-situated, appears to bo objectionable, as.'there" does not appear to be a community of interests between the country boroughs as distinct from the counties in which they are'contained. There appears also to be • 'a', disproportion between the number of members to-be elected 1 by, Wellington city nas compared with thoso to be elected by the suburban' boroiighs : and by the country districts and their contained boroughs.' I enclose a statement which I have had drawn'up showing the representation both on a population- basis' and on a capital rateable value'. basis' based on the constitution as proposed in the Bill; From this you will see' that the average of ten members corresponds to one member to every 10,216 individuals resident in' the district, or one for every £4,731,371'-of capital rateable value. In our existing constitution, based on the census of 1896, Wellington city (Mayor and two members) had one member for every 12,480 inhabitant! -The- Hutt county and suburban borough's had one member for every 14,272 inhabitants, and'.the Wairarapa and West Coast, districts, with their contained boroughs, had one member respectively for every 22,897 ■ and 22,008 inhabitants. Under the "proposed .- Bill the representation varies from one member to represent 5526 inhabitants' in the case of tho suburban boroughs,' and one member to represent 21,554 inhabitants in the case of tho West Coast counties, whilst tho wty of \\ ellmgton—which presumablv ought to have,, owing to its-proximity to the port and the more direct .interests of its inhabitants in harbour matters, a larger representation than any othor district—has only one member for every 20,789 inhabitants. Similarly, on the capital rateable value, the representation varies from 0110 member for £1,463,000 m the case of the suburban boroughs to one member to £10,255,000 -in' the case of the West' Coast comities, whilstthe City of Wellington has only ono member for £5,396,000 of capital rateable value. The Secretary suggests to tho Board that the following would be a..better scheme of allocation:—That the suburban boroughs, Onslow, Karori, Miramar, and Eastbourne, whose interests can scarcely be separated from thoso of the City ofl Wejjing'ton, should, for the purposes of the election, be joined to the city and together elect .five members; that tho boroughs of Petone and. Hutt should remain as at present joined' to the Hutt County and be given one member; that tho Wairarapa Counties, and included boroughs and town districts should jointly havo two members; and that the West Coast Counties with their .enclosed boroughs and town districts should havo two members." The Secretary also suggested that the method proposed' in tho Bill- for the election of tho country districts and borough representatives by means of-direct-voting'by the electors on tho counties roll and 'on the borough rolls .would ho'very .cumbersome and exceedingly expensive; that probably, only a very small proportion of the electors would avail themselves of their privilege, as,, in the remote country districts, it was.unlikely that Harbour Board matters would; be •considered of such importance as. to ensure that a fair proportion'of the ordinary ratepayers would vote. Tho Secretary : therefore suggestod that tho present system of : election of members of tho Wellington Harbour Board for the country districts should continuo in force, but should be modified so as l , to ,provide for the nomination of candidates prior to the election, so that the electing delegates from the various local bodies may know before thoy meet for whom they had to record their, vote. Under tho present system, each county and borough nominated a delegate, who had voting powers proportional to the number of inhabitants in tho district, and the delegates elected a member to represent them. With the single exception.that there was no provision made for the nomination of candidates, tlie arrangement seemed to havo worked satisfactorily,'arid tho saving of expense to the Board in having to prepare rolls and having to provide returning officers and polling places spread over a. wide area, had boon saved. As tho County and Borougn Councillors were elected by tho ratepayers, thero would seem to be no objection to adding to their functions the duty of selecting a member of tho Harbour.Board to represent their respective district. .':■''

THE DISCUSSION. Mr. Wilford said the Premier notified the House on Wednesday that there were alterations to be made in the Bill, and it would probably not be proceeded with this session. Therefore it would perhaps be as well to allow the matter to stand oyer. If'the Bill wero introduced next session tho representations made by tho different Harbour Boards would probably lead to a complete alteration of tho schedule. Mr. Shirtcliffe: Is. tho Bill definitely shelved? - ■ ' ' Mr. Wilford: Woll, I'm not tho Premier, but I don't know what other construction you can put on the remarks ho made. The Chairman thought that- it was highly dcsirnhlo that the Board'should make its objections known to tho Minister in any case, so that a lead might bo given. Other members concurred."' • The Chairman moved, and Mr. Beauchainp seconded, chat the suggestions mado by the secretary as to tho number of members be adopted.. ■ Mr. Shirtcliffo urged that the Mayor of the. city ought to continue on the Board. When so many corporation interests were involved, it-was highly desirablo that tho Mayor should bo a member ex-, officio. They had had experience of ■ tho value of that system in the past. Ho moved an amendment that the city of Wellington have, five elected representatives, ono to be tho Mayor, ex officio. Ho also urged that the Chamber of Commerce should have continued representation. . ~ Mr. Beauchainp said ho could not see that any special benefit would bo gained by having the Mayor as a representative. The Mayor's first interest .would bo that of tho City Council, not tho Harbour Board. Neithor could ho support the proposal to give continued representation to Chambers of Commerce. Mr. Wilford said'ho should. abstain from voting cither way, as ho was a member of tho

' ' —~-— . committee appointed in the House, and th 6 matter would come before them. Mr. Eraser supported the proposal that the. Mayor should bo a member. The Chairman said it would be a great blunder if the Mayor was not a member. The Mayor was the most representative citizen, and he should form a member of tho Harbour Board. , Mr. Wood opposed tho motion. There was nothing to prevent the Mayor or the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce„ being oleoted by tho people. . ■ Mr. M f Lellan thought the Mayor ought to have a seat. Why the Government should nominate members ho could not see. The Government, paid, no dues: they used —or abused—tho harbour—and all tho Jjsard/was to get in return was two members.' Tie would support the amendment. ■The 'amendment was carried, only Messrs. Wood and Beauchamp voting against it; Mr. Wilford declined" to vote. .1 'Mr. Shirtcliffe then moved' that tho Chamber of Commerce should have direct' representation on tho Board. He spoke'of tho good Work done by such bodies, and hoped the motion would be carried.' Mr, M'Lellan said it was' the practice nearly'all the world over for such bodies to bo represented on Harbour Boards, and he saw no reason why tho system should bo discontinued here. He seconded tho motion heartily. ...'.' '' '■ In opposing the proposition the chairman said the Chamber of Commerce had largely brought about the present feeling of antagonism. Thoy had not followed the practice of tho City Council, which was that tho Mayor should be member ex officio.' Instead they had kept tho same member on tho Harbour Board for years in succession, and had passed their President over time and again. They had cut away the'ground from their own feet, and had given riso to a'feeliug that they should not be represented. ■ ■ ... Mr. Beauchamp, while opposing the motion, pointed put that tho Chamber of.Commerce had now made a rule that the Chairman should be its representative at the Harbour Board. Mr. Eraser thought they should include the small ports in the district and not only Wellington. Mr. Hislop considered that the Chamber of Commerce was a body that ought to be encouraged, and it should bo represented on the Board. He supported the motion. Mr. Wood held that the other Chambers of Commerce outside Wellington should bo represented. Therefore ho .moved that the word .Wellington be struck uot. Tho chairman ruled that it could not be accepted as a motion. In replying, Mr. Shirtcliffe contended that it did not matter whether the Chamber of Commerce was represented by its chairman or by an ordinary member. The Chamber ought certainly to bo represented.; A difficulty was that the election of chairman to the' Chamber and . representative to ;tho Board did not coincide. As far as possible, however, it was the intention of the Chamber to be represented, by; its. chairman. Tho voting for Mr. Shirtcliffe's motion was even, and the chairman gave his casting .vote against it. • It was decided to take Eastbourne,out of tho City of Wellington and place it amongsc the Boroughs of Petone and • Lower Hutt, The secretary's suggestions as to the .representation being by delegates in the dis< tricts outside Wellington were approved.