HARBOUR BOARD

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 185, 25 April 1918, Page 10

HARBOUR BOARD

AGAINST SPECIAL REPRESENTATION PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE ADVOCATED A special committee of the Wellington Harbour Board recommended at last eveuins'fi meeting of tho board:— •'That it is desirable to abolish all special representation in the constitution of harbour boards, and that the Government lie requested to amend the Harbours Act in this cirection, all members of boards to be elected, on the Parliamentary suffrage basis." The chairman (Mr. C. E. Dauiclll said that, as members of the board know, labour, meaning waterside labour, had asked for special representation on the board, as they felt they had interests involved, and ivero rntitled to it just as much as were tho commercial and shipping interests. Tho matter bad been very carefully considered, and they had decided to bring down tbo recommendation. Mr. K. Fletcher heartily supported the recommendation. There 'was no other reasonable representation possible. He instanced Iho class representation which existed on tho board, and took objection to tha entira system. He did not think the Government .should havo representation, us it had no special interest the board. It was quito different at Westport and somo other places, where the Government bad large interests, but in Wellington there was no justification for Government representation. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh'said that the Government had no special representation on tho Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, not" on the City Council, so why should it have any representation on tho Harbour Hoard? He favoured the principle that the motion favoured. Tho speaker also scoffed at the manner in which the Government nominees were appointed. Mr. J. G. Harkness said that the harbour boards of New Zealand were monopolists, and should not bo in private bauds, but should be controlled by tho Government for the people us the railways were. Thero was hardly anything they could do in New Zealand without tho consent of Parliament. No board could reclaim any land without the consent of tho Government, and he regretted that tho personal element had been introduced. Ho bold that tho Government had every right to appoint members, and those members had been | treated with respect in tho past, and ho I honoured them for tho work. they bad I done.

Mr. J. G. Cobbo moved that, failing to gain representation on the Parliamentary franchise, two representatives if Labour De added to tho existing membership of the board. The chairman ruled that the motion could not be accepted as an amendment. It would havo to be taken as a tresn motion'. Messrs. Plletcber and Cohen both pointed out that .he motion was quite nugatory to the one passed. Tho chairman said bo had given Mr. Cobbo his word that ho might give expression to his views, so the discussion was allowed to go on. Mr. Hindmarsh thereupon said mat ho would move an amendment to make the watei-slido representation lour instead of two, so that labour would have as many representatives as other special interests. Captain M'Arthur seconded tho motion pro lorma. He thought it there was going to be waterside representation it should be confined to tho employees c' the board. Mr. Cobbe said that his motion applied to all watersido labour. Mr. B. A. Wright said that tho motion was a contradiction in terms, and pointed out that it was possible if the watersiders were given special representation they might also vole for the city members. He had obtained a legal opinion on the point, and according to it they had no such right. Mr. Fletcher: But it is done by the others. Mr. Hindmarsh's amendment was lost on the voices, and Mr. Cobbc's motion was lost by 11 votes to 5. A gust of laughter was raised by Mr. Cobbe inadvertently voting against his own motion. The whole of the discussion was conducted in a serio-comic vein, as the chairman made no t,ecrot of the mistake lie bad made in accepting the motion, and admitted that ho "had put his foot into it" by allowing the motion and the discussion thereon to tako place.