GREY HARBOR RATING DISTRICT

Hokitika Guardian, 9 February 1921, Page 4

GREY HARBOR RATING DISTRICT

LEGAL POINT RAISED

M R MUR DOCH’ S CON TEN TION

UPHELD

At the meeting of the W estland County Council meeting yesterday after noon tlio following legal opinion was read from Air C. P. Skerrett, K.C., affecting the contention raised by Mr Murdoch at the opening fitting of the

Royal Commission at Greymouth re cently:—

OPINION FOR THE COUNTY -CORN OIL OF WESTLAND, HOKI TIKA.

Rc Royal Commission to Messrs Thomson, Short and Galbraith. This Commission, issued under the authority of the Greymouth Harbour Board Amendment Act 1920, and the Commissions of inquiry Act 1908, authorises the Commissioners to inquire into and report as to what should be the boundaries of the Greymouth Harbour District and also to inquire into and report upon such other matters affecting the administration of the Greymouth Harbour Board as may be placed before them. The Chairman of the Westland County appeared on behalf of the County ratepayers and desired the Commission to investigate matters affecting the administration of the Hoard in order to show that faulty or ineffective administration had produced the financial stringency which the enlarged district would be called upon to make good. I understand the Commssion ruled that it could not go into matters affecting past administration and refused to receive any evidence on this point. Tt appears to me'that the Commissoners were wrong in tlieir view of the construction of the Commission. Apparently they determined that the past nets of administration eoulcl not be considered by them. This is quite wrong because the question is not whether the acts were past acts, but whether they were relevant to any question affecting the extension of the boon daries of the Greymouth Harbour District. Some meaning must bo given to the power and duty to inquire into matters affecting the administration of the Board and those words must f think mean to inquire into acts of the administration which might, affect the propriety of increasing the area under the Board’s jurisdiction. For example, evidence of faulty administration of the Board either in relation to its work ns a harbour authority or in. relation to the management of its endowments will clearly have relevance to the question whether the area of the district should be extended or not. I think therefore that the Commissioners were wrong in the view they took of the construction of the Commission. From Grey County Council, enclosing resolution protesting against inclusion in the rating area of the Greymouth Harbour DistrictPand urging suppori reived. The Chairman moved that support he given. Air Alurdocli, referring to the motion, pointed out that the action taken by the chairman of the Commission in ruling that enquiry into the past actions of the Grey Harbour Board was iiiadmissahle, and that they could only refer to future actions and not to the past. It had been suggested that because he had raised the question of proeoduree that it had affected the issue. He was gratified to find the opinion of Mr Skerrett had borne out the attitude •lie had taken up before thee Commission. He felt the Council would take up and support the action lie had taken up. Mr WUrd said lie fully supported the County Chairman in the attitude lie had taken up, and was glad to find his altitude was fully upheld by the eminent ccounsel to whom the matter had been referred. The motion was agreed

It was held that the above opinion confirmed the attitude taken up by Mr Murdoch at the Commission, and satisfaction was expressed at the issue as now disclosed, following the lead given by Mr Murdoch on the legal position. The following resolution of the Council oil the matter was arrived at on the motion of V* Jeffries, seconded by Mr Wand: —

That this Council representing a large number of ratepayers in the County of Westland enters its emphatic protest at the action of the Royal Commission appointed under the authority of the Greymouth Harbour Board Amejidment Act, 1920, declining to admit evidence affecting the administration of the Greymouth Harbour Board in order to show that faulty and ineffective administration bad produced tlie financial stringency which would have to be paid by tlio property owners in the proposed rating area. That the protest be forwarded at once to His Excellency the Governor-General in Council together with Counsel’s opinion received from Mr C. R. Skerrett K.C. which opinion entirely supports the contention of the Council that the evidence above referred to was wrongfully excluded by the Commission. And that the Counci requests His Excellency the Governor-General in Council to order that right he done in tluj matter. Seconded by Air Ward, supported by the whole Council and agreed to.