PROPOSED COUNTY AMALGAMATION

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22073, 22 April 1937, Page 4

PROPOSED COUNTY AMALGAMATION

TO THE EDITOE OF THE PEESB. Sir, —It is pleasing to see that the farmers of South Canterbury are protesting vigorously against the amalgamation proposals. Anyone who has taken an intelligent interest in the community life of South Canterbury must regard the compromise decision made by the conference of four counties in Timaru as a tragic and retrograde step. The decision, which will destroy natural boundaries of interest, was regarded even by its supporters as not for the best. Mr F. R. Flatman said that if he thought the counties could avoid amalgamation he would have fought against it, and Mr C. J. Talbot said that, fear of compulsory amalgamation was inducing some delegates to vote for the creation of two counties when they felt that the four counties should remain in existence.

No arguments were advanced to justify the two counties except fear of Ministerial action, and one. can sympathise with Mr R. G. Clelland who, while opposing amalgamation, said that if unification had to come the councils should agree to make one organisation rather than a botch of the scheme by cutting up the district into two counties. Beside the compromise decision, Mr Talbot's suggestion that one county should be formed in South Canterbury with, as natural boundaries, the Winchester and Raakia rivers, which could easily be administered from Timaru, stood out as something clearly worth while. Such a county' could take over harbours, hydro electricity, hospitals, highways; education, and all the major activities carried on by local bodies

in that area. It would thus eliminate a number of local bodies, co-ordinat-ing their activities in one organisation. Within the framework of the. large counties the existing counties could remain as rural councils, with the rate collectors for each area acting as secretary. Each rural council could send two representatives to the South Canterbury county, and could act as local committees, which could submit defuv ite recommendations to the central body for adoption. Such a,scheme would provide a central controlling unit. It would also possess a big advantage, in that it would retain community interest and localised control, and would throw the initiative in domestic matters on the shoulders of those most concerned, thus conserving the time of the central body officers. It would be a natural growth

from the existing system, and would protect the existence of rural centres that are vastly important to our community life.—Yours, etc., a . GERALDINE RESIDENT. April 20, 1937.