A ‘United Canterbury’ -is it just a pipe-dream?

Press, 17 June 1982, Page 17

A ‘United Canterbury’ -is it just a pipe-dream?

By

STAN DARLING

The same arguments that some Canterbury United Council members use against their present set-up could also be levelled against a directly-elected regional council. It would have little meaning for outlying rural districts. they could say. It would be expensive. It would mean another layer of local government. Supporters of stronger regional government acknowledge the debate, but they say that some scorners are those who are already getting a pretty good deal from the Government, and who don't see much gain in having a unified voice to lobby the system over a wide range of economic and social issues.

If you have reasonable security, why heckle the system that gives it to you? Still, Canterbury councillors will have to decide in the end whether they want to assume a more positive stance or waffle along as many have done in the past. As a United Council officer said the other day, many councillors will have their feet on much firmer ground when they actually have something to administer. "The United Council has to demonstrate actual accomplishment before it is credible,” says Mr John Gray, its principal officer, "instead of only planning things for others to accomplish.” The regional body’s strongest ' role remains planning, yet its stands on planning matters affecting member local bodies has often been seen as petty and uninformed interference in their affairs. The United Council’s main problem is its image. It is a problem likely to stay with it for many years, and is based partly on the public’s difficulties in pinning down what it actually does, or why it does it.

It is hard enough to explain to members, let alone the general public. The United Council may some day run the Christchurch area bus system, for instance, as a successor to the Transport Board. That job will be much easier to put across than its present transport role.

Since 1981. the regional body has been responsible for recommending how Government funds should be distributed to publicly-funded urban transport operators, in Canterbury's case the Christchurch Transport Board. Would a separately-elected regional council change the public's lack of interest — except when a major issue comes along — about what it does? Maybe, but probably not.

Cr Clutha Mackenzie, the United Council chairman, thinks there could be a case for a change to a directlyelected council, but he advises some caution in comparing ourselves with Auckland and Wellington.

Look at it this way, he says: Wellington and Auckland regions largely cover concentrations of urban population. What rural areas they cover are clearly secondary. Canterbury has a different

mix. Christchurch ’ may be the country's largest city, strictly speaking, but combined with its close suburbs, it lacks the high-density population spread over the other regions. Rangiora and Kaiapoi are the only sizeable satellite towns. In between and further afield are counties small in population but big in area. Cr Mackenzie wonders whether a regional council could work as well under those circumstances.

One reason for pause about creating a separate council with specific functions is that those functions will cost money, but the local body itself will be seen to be requiring payment of the money unless the regional council sends its bills directly to the ratepayer. So far, that has not hap-

pened in the Auckland Regional Authority, which has been going since 1963. Until rates are charged directly, they are just tacked on to local body bills and collected that way. Ratepayers understandably identify the cost of regional activities with the collecting agencies. Under an original agreement, the Auckland Regional Authority was to gain its main income from levies on local bodies only until 1967. Then it was to' become its own rating, authority. Direct rating became a controversial issue, and levies were retained after a Local Government Commission study. Apart from rates levies — almost $32 million in 1981-82 — the A.R.A. obtains its money from such things as airport dues, bulk water

sales, bus fares, rentals, concessions, trade waste, and rubbish disposal, and Government subsidies and grants.

Some levies are made only in "areas of benefit” under a system that means ratepayers pay only for those services that benefit their area. In 1960, Auckland had 32 territorial local bodies and 15 ad hoc bodies. There are still seven cities. 20 boroughs, three counties, and a district town board in an area that seems from aerial photographs to be mostly one sprawling city. After many years of wrangling, the A.R.A. was seen as one way to brjng several ad hoc activities under one administration even if urban mergers were not coming soon. There were membership compromises with the

A.R.A.. just as there have been with the United Council. The A.R.A. has 34 members. with at least one representative from each local body area no matter what its population. In central Auckland, the small borough of Newmark (population 1206) has the same number of A.R.A. representatives — one — as Mt Roskill (population 33.422). Similar comparisons can be made here. Christchurch City and Paparua County have seven members between them, and a .combined population of 196.516. That population is 15 times as large as the combined populations of seven rural Canterbury local bodies, who also have seven representatives between them.

Adequate financing of regional activities has continued to be an A.R.A. debating point. Recently, one councillor said that a direct citizens tax would make the regional authority more accountable.

Mr Barry Curtis, the A.R.A. regional planning committee chairman, says that planning, civil defence, regional parks, public transport. an orchestra, rescue services, and an airport cannot be financed adequately from rates.

He suggests a tax of $1 a week on all full-time employees. collected through withholding, tax and self-em-ployed tax payments, and 50 cents a week from Social Welfare beneficiaries.

In Auckland, that financing method could raise about $l7 million a year.

The central Government has always shied away from such a tax. It does not like the idea of collecting other people's taxes any more than local bodies do when they collect rates for ' other authorities.

In addition to its planning, public transport, and regional water board activities, the A.R.A. runs a regional parks network, a works division. a bulk water department, some regional reading, some refuse disposal, and the Auckland International Airport.

■ It also operates the Manakau Sewerage Scheme, which serves 18 territorial local bodies. .