HARBOURS BILL.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 864, 9 July 1910, Page 10

HARBOURS BILL.

SECOND READING DEBATE. QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION. Tho Hon. J. A." MILLAR, in moving tho second reading of the Harbours Amendment Bill (already summarised in The Dominion), said that for some timo it had been felt that tho constitution of harbour boards should-be placed on a different basis. An attempt was made in this'Bill to give fair representation t-o the country as well as to tho city. The principal featuro of the Bill, however, was the widening of the franchise. Hitherto there had been no uniformity in tho constitution of tho boards, and the Bill attempted to provide some uniformity. The franchise would be that of boroughs, and counties, and elections would be held on the same day as tho election for those local bodies. Power would be given to harbour boards to erect' freezing works. The other features of tho Bill had been largely discussed by tho harbours conferences. No special . representation would be given to chambers of commerce, because they practically consisted of tho same people as the payers of dues. No person would bo allowed, to exercise more thaii one vote in tho election of members, to tho board, although ho might have property" in different districts. Tho chairman of tlio board would receive a salary up'to £250 a year. Licensing of Ships. . ' 1 Ho expected a good. deal of correspondence in regard to Clause -54, which dealt with tho licensing of ships. Since 1876, there had been a clause vrhicli provided for tho licensing of ferry boats by harbour boards. When that clause was passed there were-very few steamboats in the ferry service. Lately the harbour boards had assumed tho right—which was never vested in theni to veto tho certificates given by tho Board ,of Trado. . Under the Act they had only tho right to license ships and collect a fee for so doing. It was not proposed to interfere with ..that right, but the new Bill provided - that whole a ship was seaworthy in every respect, and tlio owner had a certificate from the. Marine Department under tlio Board.-of;.Trado " rules, tho Harbour Board should license ..that vessel. Ho had ■ never heard of -the. present system of dual control being permitted anywhere, The* membershin of . tho four principal harbour; boards had been brought' down 'to fourteen—twelve elective, members and two who would bo nominated by the (government. Ho would be glad to.accept' any reasonablo suggestion or amendment that -might bo made by members. The Bill had been hanging over for six or seven years, and ho hoped that ,it would bo passed now. in a satisfactory form.

Mr. Massey's View. Mr.. MASSE Y said that, with regard to the .representation: of country districts, the Bill . was ■ a great improvement. Tlio' man in the country was just as much entitled to representation on a harbour hoard as tho man in the city. In. regard, to harbour board elections, he would bo favourable to tho Parliamentary franchise except,that ho; did not think it would to practicable. It' could " not bo. expected" that all tlio peoplo of the country would vote at harbour board elections, and tho effect of too wide-a. franchise "might bo to encourage cliques'. He thought that the first elections should bo held by tho local bodies themselves, and after that they should bo. held on 'the ' samo date. as< the elections of Jocal bodies.. Otherwise ho was afraid that very'little'interest might bo shown _in the; ■ first .elections. Where tho Government had 110 special interest in Harbour 'Boards, it should have no nominees' on tho board. He hoped that tlia Housowould divide'on this question. Under tho'clause preventing persons .-who had been imprisoned from becoming members" of boards, a man who had received 48 hours 1 imprisonment for some, minor • offenc6 would be debarred from, membership, while a man who work«l a big swindle, and escaped imprisonment, would be eligible. Ho suggested that this clause required some adjustment.

Other Criticisms. Mr. T. E. r TAYLOR (Ghristchuvcli North) criticised the representation which the Government was retaining to itself. He also asked why a handful of shipowners should, have their representative, and why payers of dues ■ should bo represented. .The principle of nomination should be abandoned, and boards should bo, entirely elective, except ' whoro the Government, was advancing largo sums of money to the boards, as in the caso of soino West Coast harbours.

Mr. POOLE (Auckland West) ap.proved of the widening of'the franchise. Hg .believed tliat many of -the Govern; ment nonuiiocs made very satisfactory members, but if the democratic principle was to be extended the nomination system must cease.

Mr. HAN AN (Invorcarfiill) expressed general approval of the Bill.

Mr. JAMES. ALLEN said that tho Bill would bo generally supported by the Opposition.. There should, however, be a clearer definition of "harbour," and ho was strongly opposed to Government nominees on boards in which tho Government bad 110 interest.

' Mr. J. P. LIJKE (Wellington Suburbs) objected to the . restrictions ' imposed on members -of companies in relation to seats on the boards. He held that these would have the effect of disqualifying a large number.of men who might otherwise make useful members.

Mr. G. W. RTJSSELL (Avon) could see no reason why Government nominees should sit on harbour boards any more than on city councils, drainage boards, and other local bodies.

Mr. M'LAREN (Wellington East) thought that .the Bill marked an advance, but that the .Parliamentary franchise should bo given. He could see 110 reason for Government nominees harbour boards. He could not see why payers of dues should have special representation, which would virtually givo them two votes, since they would also possess the 'municipal qualification. Messrs. Forbes (Huninni), Phillipos (Wnitemata). Snddon (Westland), E. TT. Taylor (Thames), Hall (Waipnwa), Clark (Port Chalmers), Ell (Christchurch South), and Craigie (Timaru) then spoke oil tho Bill. Tho 'PRIME MINISTER thought that a Bill affecting the whole Dominion should bo dealt with in committoe

by the House. If the Bill woro submitted to a committee it might alter some of its fundamental principle Members must recogniso that it was proposed to broaden tho franchise. ■What harbour boards had to guard against was going in for harbour works which woro not yet essential. Boards should, in his opinion, cxerciso more caution in this respect than they wero doing; Ho did not suggest that tho localities in question could not bear the expense —but it was not necessary so far.

The Hon. J. A. JIILLAE (in reply) said that his object was to seo that the best men got on to boards. If thero was to bo the nominativo system all through he admitted that tho waterside workers should have special representation.

The Bill was at 11.45 p.m.. read a second time on tho voices, and set down for committal next Tuesday, and tho House then adjourned.