Local government and party politics

Press, 28 November 1977, Page 16

Local government and party politics

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

While a special select committee works to complete its deliberations on the Town and Country Planning Bill, other controversial legislation continues to arrive in Parliament. So far this has included the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Local Government Amendment (No. 3) Bill, both of which are expected to be handled by the House of Representatives without reference to a select committee, and without further hearing of evidence. The committee handling of the Town and Country Planning Bill has been something about which members of both sides of the House are tight-lipped. After hearing evidence on only 40 of 238 submissions, the committee terminated the hearing of evidence. Since then it has been working on a report which will enable Parliament to deal with this measure before it rises.

This bill is. franklv. partvpolitical as is the Electoral Amendment Biff. It was somewhat surprising, therefore. when a third "difficult” measure, the Local Government (No. 31 Bill, arrived in Par'iament last week. From its introduction this measure was tied by both parties to next November’s ballot-boxes. The bill, in brief, replaces the present five-man Local Government Commission with a threeman commission consisting of nominees of the Counties Association and the Mnnicinal Association, plus a chairman for whom no snecial nnalifications are laid down. All three members will be appointed bv the Minister of Local Government. Introducing the bill, the

Minister (Mr Highet) explained that last year the Government had promoted some changes to the Local Government Act “to bring the powers of the commission more into line with the policy on which the Government was elected; and to facilitate the implementation of its well-publicised philosophy that, in the restructuring of local government, it wanted the views of the local community to prevail.” Mr Highet has left little doubt about Government intentions. He explained to Parliament that the Government had decided to go still further, reconstituting the commission and its procedures. “This action is necessary,’’ Mr Highet said, “because it is evident from a number of regional schemes issued by the commission that, in spite of the changes made by this Government, the law is still capable of being interpreted — and is being interpreted — more in keeping with the Labour Party’s policy.” In case any member had lost the point, Mr Highet spelled it out thus: “This policy was one of imposing reform on people whether they liked it or not. In contrast, the National Party’s policy is one of consultation and negotiation. Furthermore, in cases where strong objections are voiced by the people, it allows for the question to be reviewed.” Mr Highet said he would not exnect any provisional regional scheme to be abandoned “unless there is a substantial degree of opposition to it.” He added, however: “Quite clearly, the existing Wellington scheme cannot be permitted to continue in the face of the hostility it has aroused in the Horowhenua area. The Otago and Aorangi schemes

are two others in the same category.” Dr G. A. Wall (Lab. Porirua) said: “This is the death of local government reorganisation.” He and other Opposition speakers noted that tire areas affected by the change were also areas in which seats were held marginally by National members.

This point had been made earlier this year by Mr B. E. Brill (Nat. Kapiti), whose paper, prepared for the Government caucus on load government, had achieved a much larger circulation in his district. As he saw it, the Local Government Commission plan to take a greater Wellington regional zoning far north into the Manawatu had already involved him in violent objection.

the political truth is that, because of boundary changes, both Kapiti and Horowhenua are regarded as marginal seats. The Local Government Commission was proposing a Horowhenua region, which would be part of Wellington. Mr Brill has since denied that his paper, prepared for a meeting early in September, had any bearing on the dismissal and replacement of the commission. Perhaps that was not the intention — but it was also convenient for those who favoured change that about this time a listing was prepared of six electorates in which a political change would inevitably mean a change of government. The list included Kaniti and Horowhenua There are those in the National Party who say: ,r We were too kind last year; we should have changed the commission then.” Perhaps they are right in that more time would have been given for reflection, and for the preparation of legislation

which- could stand for a few years without amendment. In these cases the local member, if he is doing his job, is closely in touch with electorate feeling. When he was preparing his paper, Mr Brill was left in no doubt as to how sensitive the issue was. He met widespread concern, and several local members resigned from the National Party. National Party branches were passing motions of condemnation, and in some cases sending telegrams to the Minister. “It is quite impossible to persuade constituents that the elected Government is not responsible for the actions of a governmentappointed committee,” Mr Brill said at that time. “My electors do not want longwinded excuses as to how the Government became impotent — they simply hold the Government responsible.” About a fortnight after the caucus meeting, Mr Highet, addressing the South Island Local Bodies Association, said: “The Government will have to take-a good, hard look at the role and nature

of the commission. In examining the options available, we must even look at the question as to whether we need a commission at all.”

The extraordinary thing, considering the pressures, and also the fact that National Party policy, as expressed in its 1975 manifesto, committed the Government to restructuring, is that this has taken so long. There is some strong opinion that it could have been done 12 months ago, “With a minimum of fuss.” The National Party policy, as explained in its 1975 manifesto, is that in the restructuring of the local government the views of the local community should prevail. This would preserve the right of every local body and individual to object, or appeal against schemes of reorganisation.

If this is accepted, the National Party is innocent of the charge of partypoliticking; but it must still answer charges of producing insufficiently-researched legislation.

Already there is doubt about regional provisions in the Government’s two local government measures. The New Zealand Planning Institute has expressed its concern at the apparent confusion of objectives in relation to regional planning. The institute’s vicepresident (Mr M. E. Jones) has expressed the view that the replacement of the Local Government Commission will produce smaller, weaker regional bodies in which Government departments will lack confidence — thus taking more upon themselves. His view is that this reduction would make the operation of regional provisions in the Town and Country Planning Bill doubtful.

So it goes. There will be little satisfaction in this area because of the time factor. Some would see in this yet another argument in favour of a second revisory chamber — with the time and equipment to ensure that legislation is sound and adequate.