United Council jibs at Transport Bill

Press, 21 February 1980, Page 4

United Council jibs at Transport Bill

Urban transport should not be a mandatory regional function in Canterbury, said the Canterbury United Council’s executive committee yesterday. t The full council will be asked next week to oppose strongly the Urban Transport Bill in its present form, and to make a . separate approach to the Minister of Transport (Mr McLachlan) about the legislation. This region did not have the urban transport problems of Wellington and Auckland, councillors said. There was no justification for the complex structure of financial and land-use planning outlined in the bill. Instead of bringing power

to handle transport matters down to the local level, the bill would centralise power through a Wellington-based Urban -Transport Council, councillors said. Perhaps most important, there was no guarantee that more Government funding for public transport — or a more equal sharing of funds — would be available under the new system. Regional administration of such a system could also cost Canterbury at least $lOO,OOO a year, according to a project team’s report. The United Council’s chairman (Cr C. N. Mackenzie) said there were other “dangerous aspects”, to the bill, including mention of the National Roads Board. “If they take money from there, they take it from us anyway,” Cr Mackenzie said. He asked if it was worth taking the risk of accepting a bill to qualify for Govemment funds that might not be there.

The United Council’s two mandatory functions are regional planning and civil defence. So far, members of the new regional body have not been keen on the idea of taking on more jobs. “I think it has to be fought all the way,” Cr D. B. Rich said of the bill. “There is not much change in it.” The United Council’s principal officer (Mr J. H. Gray) said that changes from a de-

partmental draft had been “largely cosmetic.”

“With one exception — national planning and coordination of transport — the bill’s objectives are covered by current legislation, under which they are. provided for, or could very easily be provided for,’’.said the Christchurch City Engineer (Mr P. G. Scoular). The bill would make a new urban transport structure mandatory in five urban areas: Christchurch, Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin and Hamilton. Other areas could join if they wanted. But for those five, there would be no “opt?, ing out clause” provided in the Local Government Act. for councils which do not want to take on more re< gional functions. < Cr Mackenzie asked whe< ther the five areas could get together to “say we are not going to operate the thing,, full stop.” He did not like; those sorts of tactics, but seemed one way to protest against the bill.’',’ . / “This is a classic example of legislation that; appears' virtually from nowhere,’';' said Mr Gray. There was noi public clamour, especially iiv Christchurch, for a change to the present system. Cr A. A. Macfarlane saggested the separate approach to Mr McLachlan. He said the United Council must be a powerful body, and should use its influence. 1