OUR HARBOUR BOARD SYSTEM

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3019, 5 March 1917, Page 6

OUR HARBOUR BOARD SYSTEM

» A SUGGESTED CHANGE. Iu the course of a letter to his constituents, tlio payers of harbour dues', Mr. C. W. Jones, manager of Messrs. Huddart, Parker, Ltd., who for nine years has been a member of the Wellington Harbour Board, makes sonio interesting observations on our Harbour Board system. Sir. Jones, in intimating that he could not again offer himself as a candidate, wrote: —' "Perhaps a few comments drawn from experience on the constitution and operations of the Harbour Board may be permitted, but let me first say that personal criticism of any members of tho board is not intended in any way whatsoever. On the contrary, iny experience has been that the members of the board have been, and are, straigntgoing, honourable men, who have conscientiously done their duty to the best of their ability, wit'i whom it has been a pleasure- to he associated; and I trust they could say the same of me. "What my experience has impressed upon me more.and more each year is that the board as at present constituted is not an ideal body for carrying ou the large and important work of the port. is largely a commercial undertaiting like our railways, and should be managed by an independent neutral authority with an impartial' eye to the public needs and the success of the port in supplying all required facilities. Instead of this we have a board of conflicting interests. There is the country interest (and it may be admitted that the country sends members of such a stamp that they carry more weight than their mere numbers give); there is tho eternal political interest, which tempts a member to use his position to further his political ambitions; there is the merchants' interest, . which wants charges put on ships instead of goods; and tho shipowners, who want just the opposite; there is a manufacturing interest that wants a dock; and' a labour interest that wants the waterside wages raised, and so on. "It would bo untrue to say the board, so constituted, lias been a fail-. ure. It has done good work in spite of its constitution; but it has also made mistakes as a result of pressure from various directions which'a more neutral and independent management would probably have avoided.

''"I am strongly of opinion that the port should bo managed by a commission of throe.—a chairman and two assistants —who should hold office during good beliaviour, and he paid adequate salaries. I cannot give all the reasons in the space of a letter, and merely mention tlio general conclusion to' which I have been led. But I would like 'to mention one outcome, of the present constitution of the board which I have not found altogether pleasant. 1 Tiavo constantly felt in the board a feeling of unfriendliness, or, at any rate, suspicion, towards shipowners as a class. Thoy are looked upon as public depredators, who charge extravagant rates, pass all increased expenses on to the public, juicl make'unfair profits. This is as wide, of the mark as it is to charge tho fanners of New Zealand with growing fat at the public expense, when the probability is that the. majority of our farmers work hard for a small return and in many instances have difficulty in making ends meet."