MONDAY, JULY 5, 1965. Local Government

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30794, 5 July 1965, Page 12

MONDAY, JULY 5, 1965. Local Government

Mr H. J. Walker’s suggestion during the Budget debate that ratepayers in the suburbs outside the control of the Christchurch City Council should contribute to the cost of “ metropolitan ” services and amenities provided by the city has drawn from the adjacent local authorities the protests that were to be expected. Plans are afoot to hail Mr Walker before a meeting of Waimairi, Paparua, Heathcote, Halswell, and Riccarton councillors determined to acquaint him with “ the true facts Mr Walker is probably capable of defending himself in this formidable company, especially as his contentions, in principle if not in detail, have been supported by every competent body that has examined the structure of local government in Christchurch. But it would be a pity if the process of enlightening Mr Walker should be one-sided. Why not invite a representative or representatives of the City Council to the meeting? Why not a public discussion, perhaps chaired by Mr Walker? This is a matter of prime importance to the people of Christchurch, whether they are ratepayers of the city or of the suburban authorities; and it should not be represented as a sort of contest between the two. Each has as much to gain as the other from the reforms which are the logical outcome of Mr Walker’s suggestions. It is 16 years since the then Local Government Commission recommended the unification of the metropolitan area of Christchurch under a single local authority; but it is not likely that the considerations of equity and community of interest that so strongly influenced the Local Government Commission in 1949—and which obviously appeal strongly to Mr Walker—have lost any of their force. A unified city is the best solution of Christchurch’s problems of local government; and but for the intervention of Mr Walker’s political forbears unity would have been achieved in 1950. All the expedients that have been suggested since then, ranging from “ two-tier gov- “ eminent ” to the special rating proposals of Mr Walker, are no more than second-best or third-best; and they should have been unnecessary.