THE PRESS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1984. Ratepayers and voting

Press, 1 November 1984, Page 12

THE PRESS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1984. Ratepayers and voting

“No taxation without representation” was a battle-cry that rallied the American colonies against England in the revolutionary war that gave birth to the United States. The principle that taxes should be levied only with the consent of the taxed has been a firmlyentrenched tenet of democratic societies ever since. Two hundred years ago Lord Camden said in a speech to the House of Lords that taxation and representation were inseparably united. “God hath joined them: no British Parliament can put them asunder,” he said. Apparently the present New Zealand Parliament is about to attempt what no British

Parliament can do. Local bodies are elected to make proper use of the rates that they levy on propertyowners. The Government proposes to change the law under which local bodies are elected. The effect of the change will be to limit the amount of say that some ratepayers have in how much is levied on them and how it is spent; at worst, the change could disenfranchise some ratepayers altogether. The nub of the change is the proposal that eligibility to vote should be based solely on residential qualification and an age requirement. This might seem all very democratic, but the change will put an end to the traditional system that,; in Christchurch for instance, allows city businesses to nominate someone connected with them as city voters. Nominated persons can live outside the city boundary and still stand for local body office in the city. .. ■<’ . ' . , ■- The inequity of the change would be that it would remove the ' right ,of ■ ratepaying businesses to nominate a proxy — and possibly remove their right to a vote in local government elections — without relieving them of the obligation to pay rates. At the same time it would enhance the power of residents who

are not ratepayers to demand spending on this or that, and to demand an increase in the rates they do not have ,to pay. In Christchurch city, the industrial and commercial premises are levied for 35 per cent of the city’s rate income. Without this contribution, the rates levied on residential; ratepayers — and indirectly on tenants through rents — would need to be much higher to maintain the standard.of services. If residents pause to consider this, the inescapable fairness of retaining the already limited and watered-down voice of ratepaying businesses in community politics should be readily appreciated.

Part of the problem that the proposed law change would create in Christchurch is a direct result of the irrational local body boundaries in the metropolitan area. Amalgamation of the several territorial local bodies in greater Christchurch would solve most of the difficulties at a stroke. Waiting for the longoverdue rationalisation of local bodies in Christchurch is like waiting for Godot, and amalgamation must.be regarded, as a most improbable occurrence for some years yet. Even that, however, would not reconcile the contradictory aims of the proposed amendment: on the one hand a suffrage based on residential qualification and on the other a tax-gathering system based on property qualifications. To be truly democratic, a “citizen’s vote” would have to be matched by a “citizen’s tax.” , The art taxation is plucking the goose to obtain the Idlest amount .ojE feathers with the least possible amourit of hissing. The, iniquity of the proposed change is that it seeks also 1 :; to deprive some of the plumpest geese of their .tongues, after which they would be powerless to protest against even the most savage loss of plumage.