PROPOSED REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30678, 18 February 1965, Page 14

PROPOSED REGIONAL AUTHORITY

City Council Rejects Bill By Two Votes

Labour councillors at a special meeting of the Christchurch City Council last evening succeeded in having rejected a draft bill for a regional authority which would take over the functions of the Milk Board, Transport Board, Drainage Board, and Regional Planning Authority.

They were supported by Crs. P. J. Skellerup and A. Schumaker in a proposal put forward by Cr. R. M. Macfarlane, M.P., as Labour’s alternative to a regional authority.

Cr. Macfarlane’s successful motion proposes that the functions of the Drainage Board and the Transport Board be taken over by the City Council. The council will approach outside local authorities to seek their support for the proposal.

AU local bodies concerned would have representation op the drainage and transport committees with full voting powers, and any committee representatives of an outside local body would have the right to state a case before an open meeting of the full council.

The motion was carried by 10 votes to eight, those supporting it being the Mayor (Mr G. Manning), and Crs. N. G. Pickering (who seconded it), Macfarlane, M. B. Howard, M.P., R. H. Stillwell, L. Christie, H. E. Denton, A. E. Armstrong, Skellerup, and Schumaker. Those who opposed it were Crs. W. P. Glue, H. P. Smith, M. McLean, A. R. Guthrey, W. E. Olds, H. G. Hay, G. D. Griffiths, and T. D. Flint Crs. R. G. Brown and M. R. Carter were absent Amendment An amendment moved by Cr. Flint that the council reiterate approval of the regional authority bill in principle and ask the council’s committee to consider what regional services the city could offer for inclusion in the bill was rejected by 10 votes to eight Before councillors debated the merits of the bill, the chairman of the investigating committee (Mr E. J. Bradshaw) explained the proposals it contained and answered numerous questions.

Cr. Smith asked whether the bill was warranted and whether it was going far enough. “Should we not go further with water and such other services?" he asked. Mr Bradshaw said the committee found that the Auckland authority was encumbered and had experienced difficulties through taking in too many services. "We felt that Christchurch should start on a modest basis rather than going in boots and all,” he said. Milk Board

The Milk Board, said Cr. Olds, comprised seven members, five of whom were members of the City Council. He asked Mr Bradshaw whether he thought it reasonable for the board to be included in the authority. Mr Bradshaw: I have heard at great length why the Milk Board, and the Drainage Board, and the Transport Board and the Planning Authority don’t want to be inc’uded in the proposed authority. However, my personal view is that their reasons are not very convincing. We all tend to say there is a need for local body reform, but immediately add in lower tones, “providing you don’t touch my board.” “What will the effect be on costs to the ratepayer?” asked Cr. Smith. “I understand the principal saving is election costs, but if you take over all four boards you will still need their staff.” Mr Bradshaw said that there would be increased initial costs during the first formative years, but the long-term view would suggest a saving to Christchurch of an incalculable amount of money.

“Immediately such an authority is formed, the cost will be shared by the whole metropolitan area,” he said. Sabotage Charge

After Cr. Macfarlane moved his motion, Cr. Olds accused him of trying to sabotage a bill which he originally had favoured. Cr. Smith said he did not

think the time had come yet to discard the bill. It still required a lot more study, he said. Cr. Howard said her main concern about the proposed authority was the possibility of increased rates.

Cr. Denton agreed, and said that he, too, was very, very worried. The bill gave the authority the necessary power to build its own premises and strike its own rate. "I am worried about those ratepayers in the lower wage bracket and the old-age pensioners,” he said. Moving his amendment, Cr. Flint said he considered the bill was a modest start to providing necessary Improved local body reform in Christchurch. When considering a larger regional authority, he had in mind for instance such services as the Road Tunnel Authority, traffic department, and Fire Board. “The bill in its present form is a modest start and should be encouraged,” he said. Mayor’s Views The Mayor said he was concerned that any amalgamation plans would be held back if the council accepted the proposal for a regional authority. Christchurch needed first to become a bigger ter-

ritorial unit. He urged councillors to approach the problem realistically. “Amalgamate first, and consider a metropolitan board of works later,” he said.

Cr. Pickering said he believed Cr. Macfarlane’s motion was a step in the right direction. He said he was astounded that the Citizens’ members had not got together to discuss the bill. Labour members had met and dissected the bill. Council Revenue

Cr. Pickering said that the coundl’s annual revenue was about £6,500,000, of which the ratepayers found £2m.

“Where will the other £4m come from if we give away our trading concerns such as tiie Municipal Electricity Department, airport, and waterworks?” he asked. The bringing of the Transport Board and Drainage Board under the care of the council would strengthen it considerably, he said. The investigating committee which prepared the bill consisted of Mr Bradshaw and Crs. Denton, Guthrey and Smith, with Cr. Macfarlane as a co-opted member.

A new draft bill will now be prepared along the lines of Cr. Macfarlane’s motion. Even if other local bodies disagree with the new proposal, the council could proceed with the bill and present it to the Local Bills Committee in Wellington, where any objections would also be heard.