City Council votes for ward system

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33155, 20 February 1973, Page 1

City Council votes for ward system

Christchurch city has been divided into five wards for the next municipal election. Confirmation of the special order defining the wards was given by the council last evening, with voting on strict party lines, after Citizens’ Association councillors had argued that the basis of wards should be electors, not population, and that objections should be heard in public.

1 he sub-committee which drew up the ward boundaries had considered objections and submissions —ll were listed and included one petition of 92 names — but found that no alternatives had been proposed, the Deputy Mayor (Cr R. M. Macfarlane), chairman of the sub-committee, said.

“Most were repetition of the discussion andi argument at the council on the merits and demerits of the ward system,” Cr Macfarlane said. “I would have thought that if there was some fundamental objection to the system someone would have come up with an alternative to the boundaries.” There had been an objection that the wards were drawn up on a population basis instead of the number of electors, he said. However, this was the basis on which Parliament was elected. The city solicitors had said that the population basis was a valid one. “We are not going to be thwarted by any legal technicalities,” he said. “One of the biggest political tricks ever perpetrated in this city,” was the description Cr H. G. Hay, leader of the

Citizens’ Association council-, lors, gave to the recommendation. “We are not attacking a Ward system, but the method by which these boundaries were fixed,” he said. Cr Hay proposed that a decision be deferred until opportunity was given for an independent inquiry into the boundaries. A computer could be fed with all the facts — population. electors and values — to give an answer, Cr H. L. Garrett said. That was an alternative but the best method was a decision by an impartial, non-political body. The proposal had been rushed through like an extra Christmas pudding. Cr P. J Skellerup said. No-one would object to a ward system, but it did not appear that justice had been done. Certainly it had not been seen to be done. “It smacks a bit of Tammany Hall,” he said. “You are making a mistake.” The Citizens’ Association had favoured a ward system

i after amalgamation, but now ! some were against wards, Cr R. J. Cunningham said. There was no evidence that the people were unhappy about a ward system. Now there was talk of a j flaw in the Municipal Cor- ' porations Act, but a National Government, the Citizens’ Association’s “big brother,” i had been in power for 12 I years without “discovering it,” Cr M. McG. Clark said.

The city was committed to an investigation of the ward system, Cr P. D. Dunbar said, but the argument was on the method by which it was to be introduced. Had a Citizens’ council been elected, the whole matter would have been put to an indepen- ' dent tribunal. Labour reply Replying to the debate, Cr i Macfariane said there had -I been no undue haste. The 11 Citizens might have taken themselves a little too cheaply. They had thrown 1 in the sponge too quickly. /He did not agree with them 'on the boundaries.