PRIVATE MEMBERS MOVE Wards would need magisterial sanction

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33154, 19 February 1973, Page 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS MOVE Wards would need magisterial sanction

Magisterial approval of proposed municipal corporation wards, and public hearing by a magistrate of objections, arc required in a private bill amending the Municipal Corporations Act which will be put before Parliament by the member for Papanui (Mr H. J. Walker i.

The proposed bill also provides that the amendment will apply to any special order on wards made since the last council election, as well as to future orders.

In Christchurch, the Labour - majority City [Council has proposed a ward system which has been strongly opposed by “Opposition” councillors as being politically unjust.

The effect in Christchurch of the proposed bill would be to make the ward system subject to magisterial approval and to public objection.

It has been said that the ! ward boundaries proposed for [Christchurch by a Labour i committee—Citizens’ Association councillors have (declined to sit on it—would ensure Labour majorities in future Christchurch City Council elections.

In four pages, the proposed Municipal Corporations Amendment Bill provides that a special order made by a council creating, altering, or abolishing wards shall be only provisional until confirmed by a magistrate.

Right of objection The longest clause of the I three-clause bill sets out, in a new section to the act, the [ procedure to be followed to! obtain the magisterial con-! firmation. It also confers on; electors the right of objection. Provisional special orders must be publicly notified, and objections called for. If no objections are received, the magistrate must confirm the order. But if objections are lodged, the magistrate must order a public hearing and confirm, disallow, or conditionally confirm the council’s provisional special order. The magistrate, says the explanatory note to the bill, is to have regard to existing ward boundaries and communication facilities, any community of interest of the inhabitants, and the topographical features and developmental history of the borough. The present act says that anv council may, by special order, “. . . alter the boundaries of any of the wards of the borough or wholly redivide the borough into wards. . . .” Under the proposed bill, this will be replaced by a clause requiring confirmation by a magistrate. Written reasons Under the bill, a copy of the council’s provisional order must be lodged with the (local senior magistrate, and

i during the next 28 days a i provisional order must be 'held for public inspection, and written objections advertised for at least once a week. There follows provision for I the public hearing of objections, and that the magistrate must give written reasons for ! his eventual decision. I No special order on wards may come into force at any general council election “. . . , to be held after the date of ■ the enactment of this section unless and until the objecItion procedure provided for jin this section of the act has been duly complied with by the council. . . .” Meanwhile, the chairman of the Christchurch Citizens’ and Ratepayers’ Association (Mr M. O. Holdsworth) has issued a statement welcoming reports that tire Christchurch City Council “is relenting from its earlier attitude” and considering the public hearing of objections to its proposed ward system. “On the other hand it is regretted that the Labour council still insists on retaining absolute control of setting

the ward boundaries, which is in complete defiance of all .democratic principles.” "'Who fooled?’" . The statement goes on to say that the association "woni ders who is being fooled when e. it is claimed that a Labour- . controlled committee can give - a fair, balanced, and unbiased decision on the question.” r Mr Holdsworth said that on - the question of basing the e. wards in Christchurch on r| population instead of eleci tors, it was surprising to read s |that arguments against this j were wrong because they used the 1966 census figures, fi These had been the latest 11 available at the time, and ■ I were used to illustrate that r I minors comprised a greater s. part of the population in , isome proposed wards. ‘‘The use of population as fia base means that five elec- ’; tors in the Avon ward would '.have the same voting strength si as six electors in the East •I ward.” ‘I In the final analysis, up-to-j . * date figures would have to be 5 used, but if rolls were pres pared on the basis of the recommended wards they would soon show the unbalanced . voting strength. Mr Holds- ; worth said.