Amalgamation points

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32873, 23 March 1972, Page 14

Amalgamation points

In the scheme proposed for Christchurch by the Local Government Commission the representation would be one councillor for 16,000 people compared with the ratio of one councillor for 870 people existing in the Heathcote County Council, a public meeting called by the Hillsborough Residents’ Society was told on Tuesday evening.

The meeting was called to discuss the proposals and to gain information from several invited speakers. The president of the residents’ society (Mr P. T. Heal) said he was disappointed at the attendance (about 30) as March 24 was the last date objections to the scheme could be lodged.

He said no resolutions would be passed by the meeting. It was called simply to gain information.

Cr J. M. McKenzie, the Hillsborough riding member on the Heathcote County Council, said that under the present legislation a council could consist of no more than 21 members and a Mayor.

He doubted that in the scheme envisaged part-time councillors would be able to do the amount of work involved and if they were to be paid full-time councillors they would have to be highly paid.

Cr McKenzie said the commission had said that there would be representation by wards. Wards had existed before in Christchurch but they had been phased out, and who was to say that this would not happen again.

He said the commission’s report had not given one iota of factual information on how rates would be reduced by amalgamation or how the larger area would become more efficient. At present Heathcote rates were 44 per cent lower than Christchurch City.

The chairman of the Waimairi County Council (Mr D. B. Rich) said that the ward system as envisaged was farcial. Some of the proposed wards would be larger than the existing largest local body. The whole proposal revolved around two factors—economics and representation, said Mr Rich. He said he challenged anybody to point out where sayings in administration and: equipment could be carried out.

Cr R. M. Macfarland representing the Christchurch City Council, said that the fundamental question was rates and he suggested that this was a narrow matter on which to base an argument. To those who claimed that not enough time was being given to consider the proposals, he said that nobody was being rushed into it—it would take five to 10 years to carry out and everybody would have a full and democratic right to vote on it.

The president of the Metropolitan Ratepayers’ Association (Mr A. A. Mackintosh) said that he believed in amalgamation in principle. Such problems as Mona Vale and the more recent one of Fleming’s Mill would be easier to solve if only one local body was concerned.

For amalgamation to succeed more education of the people was needed and this menat that they had to be given more information. Mr Mackintosh said the commission had not done its job properly as it had not given the people enough information.

The director of the Regional Planning Authority (Mr C. B. Miller) who said he was not representing the authority but thought he could give an unbiased view of the matter, said that the commission had done a good job in the circumstances but the circumstances were not very good. The act setting out what the commission was to do was not a very satisfactory one.

Also the commission had made some wrong assumptions based on incorrect information often caused not because the wrong questions had been asked but because the wrong people had been asked the questions.