LOCAL BODIES

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 70, Issue 124, 10 March 1950, Page 3

LOCAL BODIES

VIEW OF MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION RECONSTRUCTION URGED (P.A.) 'iAUCKLAND, March fl. An approach is to be made to the Government for the reconstruction of the Local Government Commission. This decision was made after a , long discussion by the Municipal Association of New Zealand in conference at Auckland to-day. Suggestions were made for the modification of the Act under which the commission was appointed and for a more conciliatory form of proceeding instead of “a Supreme Court atmosphere.”

The conference approved the principle of conciliation and agreed that there should be the right of appeal from the decision of the “conciliation committee,” but rejected any suggestion that the appellate body should be the present commission. The Local Government Commission and “the Supreme Court attitude” which it was stated to have adopted were criticised in a discussion lasting practically all the morning. The members of the association attacked various aspects of the commission’s sittings, and particular reference was made to the fact that witnesses had been left with the feeling that they had been on trial.

Five questions put forward by the secretary of the association, Mr A. Eaton Hurley, formed the basis of the discussion and of the recommendations passed for an improvement in means of achieving local body reform. It Avas felt that there should be some overriding authority to deal with proposals for reform and also that there should be modifications of the present- act governing the commission.

The five questions put forward by Mr Hurley as a basis for the discussion were:— -

(1) Does the conference still approve the- necessity for some form of adjustment or boundaries and functions of local bodies?

(2) If so, does it consider that adjustments should be limited to such as may be achieved by voluntary negotiation ?

(3) Alternatively, does it agree that some form of overriding authority is necessary with sufficient poAvers to formulate schemes of reorganisation? (4) If the second alternative is accepted, does the conference approve the present provisions contained in the Local Government Commission Act, 1946, either with or without modifications? (5) If approved with modifications, ( Avhat are those modifications (a) as to form of procedure, (b) as to the right of appeal, (c) as to an appeal to the electors?

“These are -only points that have come to jny notice, and it is not intended to be an exhaustive list of possible modifications,” said Mr Hurley When the first question came Linder discussion.

The Mayor of Auckland (JVIr Allum) moved that the answer should be “Yes.” His motion was carried. Mr Allum moved that the answer to the second question should be negative. While it was most desirable that changes should take place by voluntary negotiation, to limit them to that t would mean that nothing would be done. Intervention by some outside authority was desirable. Mr Allutn’s motion was carried.

“Overriding Authority”

When the third question came up for discussion lie expressed the view that there should be an overriding authority with sufficient powers to formulate schemes of reorganisation. He moved accordingly', stating that even if authority did no more .than give the lead it ymuld be of great assistance. The motion was carried. Mr R. J. Mills, the Mayor of Mount Eden, moved that the answer to the fourth question should be: “Yes, with modifications.” At the same time he emphasised the need for preserving the. right to have a poll where desired on any proposal. “One of the mistakes made by the commission has been that it has sat as a court,” said Mr N. H. Moss (Mayor-of Stratford). If there. had not been the Supreme Court attitude introduced at the sittings here would not have been so much feeling aboiit the commission.

“I agree that the procedure adopted has got the backs up of a lot, of local bodies,” said the president of the association, Mr Will Appleton (Mayor of Wellington). “There should have been mope of the ideal of conciliation. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr W. A. Bodkin) put his finger on the spot when he said it was desirable to get people together. It is unfortunate that there was a Supreme Court atmosphere.” Mr' Mills’ motion was carried. The fconference expressed itself in favour of conciliation in the first instance and agreed there should be the right of appeal. Mr Moss moved that the conference should express the opinion that the constitution of the commission should be revised and that the status of a Supreme Cotirt judge for the chairman should be revoked, that further details should be referred to the executive, and that in the meantime the Government should be asked to put the commission into recess.

If the decisions reached by the association’s executive had to be circulated to local bodies it would not be possible to get legislation introduced at the next session of Parliament, said Mr Appleton. He moved an amendment that, the whole matter should be referred to the executive with a view to appi’oacliing the Government. • Mr Appleton’s amendment was carried by 68 votes to 62. It was also decided, on Mr Appleton’s motion, that the conference affirmed the principle that there should the right of a poll of the electors affected, where the adjustment of boundaries was proposed, and not ; , s only where it was proposed to abolish a complete local authority.