Regional Control Not Wanted In Meantime

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30760, 26 May 1965, Page 1

Regional Control Not Wanted In Meantime

The act establishing the Auckland Regional Authority had failed to be an effective model for establishing a regional authority, and there seemed to be considerable merit in a suggestion from the Helensville Borough Council that Christchurch should wait for two years to see how the Auckland authority undertook its duties, said the chairman of the Christchurch Drainage Board (Mr F. R. Price) in a report to the board last evening.

Mr Price examined reports of recent meetings to discuss a regional authority or a coordinating body for metropolitan Christchurch, comments from Auckland local bodies on the new authority there and the annual report of the Sydney Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board. “The two years’ delay could be used profitably to try the alternative of a coordinating body,” Mr Price said. “This would be useful even as a preliminary to a formal authority and would certainly be helpful in determining the nature of legislation best suited to the establishment of a regional authority should this be generally desired later.”

He suggested that the board should agree to the co-ordinating body providing it consisted of the territorial authorities and the ad hoc bodies and that adequate representation was given to the board.

Population could not serve as a basis, but no doubt some formula could be worked out on the basis of revenue raised, capital expenditure and loans authorised over say the last five or 10 years. . “The board should make it clear at the start that it will

not participate in any scheme where it is not adequately represented,” Mr Price said. The board might facilitate the suggestion by offering its new boardroom free of charge for meetings. Mr Price said. “The board should once again advance its plan for electoral reform, both with the City Council and the investigating committee,” Mr Price continued. “The council should be asked to give a firm decision within the next few months and failing a reply by say October, the board would need to look at the reform of its own electoral boundaries if legislation is envisaged in 1966 to bring about changes before the next board elections.” Mr R. H. Stillwell said he could see no reason for a change in the present situation. “Let this board carry on as it wants to now,” he said.

Mr M. R. Carter said that the Auckland scheme was still in its infancy and should not be condemned. The board, along with all other local bodies, should continue to search for an alternative that would bring about better local government.

“We are in the age of committees,” said Mr D. P. McLellan. “I have heard that if Moses was in a committee we would still be in Egypt.” “It is time a lot of us in local government did some fundamental thinking.” Christchurch was not going to stand still, particularly in traffic growth, in the next

two years while local bodies stood around, he said.

There was no doubt that there must be good drains, good roads and good parks. Mr McLellan said, but at the same time citizens must be given an opportunity of exercising their responsibilities. A case could be made for a lot of local )x>dy services to be undertaken by the central government; but there was a system of local government which was a great bulwark of democracy. Local government could be exercised by small units working close to the people who met the cost; but at the same time that local government could operate more efficiently under a two-tier system Mr McLellan wanted the board to press for a regional authority or a metropolitan board of works as soon as possible, but the board rejected this in favour of approval of Mr Price’s report and suggestions.