Merger proposal for counties, municipalities

Press, 13 June 1979, Page 18

Merger proposal for counties, municipalities

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

It is many years since so many fundamental changes have been canvassed for and within New Zealand’s local body framework. The changes include ratepayers’ revolts, united and regional councils established between local and national government. new planning responsibilities and powers, calls to the central government for a more equitable sharing of the total tax take, and other issues.

One matter that has not so far received much public attention is the suggestion that counties and municipalities should fuse into one allembracing association — instead of being in the separate Counties Association and Municipalities Associations as at present. This point has been exercising both associations and is of considerable interest to the central government. At first sight, this appears to be a machinery matter and not one that will interest or concern individual citizens. But there are historic reasons for the separation and if those reasons are less valid today then ratepayers are entitled to know.

In his annual report to the annual conference in Dunedin during April, the president of the Municipalities Association (Mr B. G C. Elwood) called for a merger with the Counties Association. He said legislation was being drafted, and should be introduced into Parliament this session, to complete the amalgamation of the Counties and Municipal Corporations Acts. The legislation would cover water supply, sewerage and drainage, electricity and gas, refuse disposal, housing, forestry, by-laws, and other miscellaneous pow’ers at pre-

sent in the two existing acts and not already incorporated by the Local Government Act.

This bill will complete a major undertaking that was begun more than 10 years ago. The Local Government Act in its final form will have more than 700 sections, plus a number of schedules, and will be one of the largest in the statute book. Not all aspects will work equally well, and there is likely to be a considerable period needed before complete adjustment is made by all local authorities. Mr Elwood has given a lead towards complete merger with the Counties Association during his three-year terms as president of the Municipalities Association. But he was unable to get the Counties Association to agree to a joint secretariat, even though offering them both the presidency and secretary of the joint body. Further, the president of the Counties Association (Mr J. M. Somerville) did not encourage Municipalities Association annual conference delegates to believe that the coming together of the two bodies as one unit with one voice could be accepted easily by his members. This stubbornness by the counties seems to have its base in the historical differences between the two organisations. The counties see no reason to change, although they are increasingly aware of the desire of the municipalities to do so. Subsequently, the recentlyappointed Secretary for Local Government (Mr J. N. L. Searle) has spoken with considerable force on the

necessity for a merger. He said the line of demarcation was becoming blurred bettween the two associations. “How you deal with the problem, or how you will answer the criticism which will be directed at you if you do not, will determine your future,” he said.

At a time of population drain out of rural and ruralservicing areas, and at a time of falling membership of Federated Farmers, and with fewer farmer members of Parliament or M.P.s with significant rural votes, it is not surprising that the rural sector is afraid its voice might be lost in a merger with the municipalities. But it is easily overlooked how big a rural area is encompassed within the boundaries of municipalities, or how this will continue to grow with the merging of neighbouring boroughs and counties round New Zealand.

Even more important is the “second class” reputation which local bodies have with the general public, which in turn influences their clout with the central government. This must have had a bearing on the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) to discontinue discussions with Mr Elwood over revenue sharing — the diversion of more of the national tax take into local government. Merging the two associations does seem one way of enabling them to speak to central government with a stronger and more unified voice. As long as local bodies still have important functions to perform — and under the new legislation they will have — then it is desirable that they should be able to promote these as effectively as possible.