Drainage Board Looks For Voting Reforms

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30892, 27 October 1965, Page 18

Drainage Board Looks For Voting Reforms

Local body reform was again aired at the Christchurch Drainage Board’s meeting last evening, but the discussion ended in reference to a committee.

Some members tried to put forward their ideas on how reforms should be implemented, but the chairman (Mr F. R. Price) kept discussion to the original motion of Mr R. L. T. Sandford and several amendments to it, most of which sought committee action.

With a view to stimulating public interest in local authority elections, and reducing costs, Mr Sandford suggested that the board, in conjunction with the Transport Board, initiate legislative action to postpone their 1967 elections to coincide with the municipal elections in 1968.

He also asked for an approach to the territorial local bodies for common facilities for voting and the use of common rolls.

Next, Mr Sandford proposed there should be legislation to amend the board’s sub-districts to provide more democratic representation an a population basis.

It seemed to be sheer stupidity to have the Transport Board and Drainage Board elections held a year before the municipal elections, Mr Sandford said. It was an extra burden on the ratepayers. The elections attracted a poor poll—about 6 per cent —which indicated that people

were not interested or they were satisfied.

“I am not satisfied,” he added. £86.000 Spent Since 1948 the elections fori the two boards had cost I £86.000, and the greatest parti had been on the preparation i and printing of rolls. Mr Sand-| ford said. He could not see| why the City Council and' other territorial local bodies’ j rolls could not be used.

The previous board had put forward a scheme for reform. but it had been pigeonholed by the City Council.

By operating under a ward I system the board was not (keeping up with the times. (The Christchurch central area i was losing population although flats were going up ! like mushrooms. Waimairi was a city in population, but just another ward to the i board. His ward had a roll of only 1200, and it was no satisfaction to know that he had been elected by a mere 100 voters, Mr Sandford said. The board could take an important step by amending its ward boundaries if it was not prepared to abolish wards altogether. Postal voting had been a

success elsewhere—perhaps it could achieve something for

Christchurch. Mr Sandford said.

Mr G. A. Connal said reform had been proposed in the past ‘and proposals had been initiated by the board. It was generally agreed that there was a .need for reform but differences of opinion on the form it should take. However, the subject was too complex for an on-the-spot decision by the board, he said. He favoured are port by a committee which could be discussed with the other local bodies. Anything that would improve voting would be worth while, Mr R. H. Stillwell said. Compulsion

“I have been an advocate for compulsory voting,” he said. “We have compulsory enrolment, but we should also have compulsory voting as they do in Australia. Our present system will get worse, and will get down to no-one voting." The only way reform could be achieved was by adoption of a universal ward system, Mr E. V. Smith said. Mr C. H. Russell proposed that a committee of the whole board should consider Mr Sandford’s motion and report to the next meeting. . “We would spend the whole night on that,” Mr Smith said. | “It would be far better to i have a small committee to see the best way of going about getting reform.” “There is very little in this at all,” Mr D. P. McLellan said. “The substance of this is that at the next principal elections the electors will be presented with yet another voting paper. The prospect fills me with horror.” If the proposal was for a more important matter such as a two-tier system of local government or amalgamation then it would warrant a special committee, he said. As it was, it was of little consequence. After amendments for committee action had been lost or withdrawn, Mr Connal proposed a committee of six to initiate and discuss proposals to alter the system of voting for ad hoc and other local bodies, with power to confer with the Transport Board and the City Council and later other local bodies. This was adopted.