THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1985. Local body boundaries

Press, 23 February 1985, Page 18

THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1985. Local body boundaries

The time is coming again for local bodies to review their boundaries and reconsider possible amalgamations. The Local Government Amendment (No. 2) Bill, now before Parliament, would make amalgamation in Christchurch much more likely than hitherto. If the bill becomes law — and at this stage its passing would seem likely with only minor modifications ) opponents to a scheme proposed by the Local Government Commission would have to battle public apathy as well as the scheme’s supporters.

Reluctant local authorities — and reluctant ratepayers — would be forced into amalgamation unless fully half of all the people eligible to vote in the combined area said “No.” Even getting the issue to the vote of the kind of amalgamation scheme likely for metropolitan Christchurch would require a petition of some 20,000 signatures. In the subsequent poll, all of the eligible voters who did not register a vote would be assumed to be in favour of the proposal. The system proposed by this bill greatly increases the likelihood of amalgamation going ahead. It has already drawn mixed reaction from local authorities, depending on whether they favour or oppose amalgamation. This diversity of opinion between the various local bodies has encouraged the Government to proceed with the bill. Reliance on voluntary efforts over the last decade to achieve local body restructuring has achieved little. Almost certainly, the passage of the Local Government Amendment (No. 2) Bill will mean the dusting-off of arguments last put forward in 1972, when a previous Local Government Commission recommended replacing 18 territorial local authorities in North Canterbury with a new, enlarged metropolitan Christchurch and four counties. Amalgamation has some ardent supporters in Christchurch, and some equally dogged detractors. The Mayor of Christchurch, Sir Hamish Hay, is one of the supporters and he intends to invite the Local Government Commission to make Christchurch an early port of call once the legislation is through Parliament. Both sides of the argument should welcome an early opportunity to air their views and to present their cases while there is still some general public interest in the issue. By the time that all submissions had been put to the previous commission, and when objections to the provisional scheme had been heard and the final scheme produced, both participants and public had become rather wearied by the debate.

Any propoal to amalgamate will inevitably draw opposition. The president of the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association offered sound advice yesterday, however, when he suggested that local bodies should not dismiss change before they had gone into an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation, including cost-benefit studies. The twin questions of who benefits most from amalglamation and who is required to pay more have been central to the debate from as early as 1890, when representatives of the boroughs of St Albans, Linwood, Sydenham, Woolston, Sumner, and New Brighton, and the road districts of Heathcote, Halswell, Spreydon, Riccarton, and Avon, sat down with the Christchurch City Council to discuss unification. Any proposal to amalgamate will inevitably draw opposition. The president of the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association offered sound advice yesterday, however, when he suggested that local bodies should not dismiss change before they had gone into an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation, including cost-benefit studies.

The twin questions of who benefits most from amalgamation and who is required to pay more have been central to the debate from as early as 1890, when representatives of the boroughs of St Albans, Linwood, Sydenham, Woolston, Sumner, and New Brighton, and the road districts of Heathcote, Halswell, Spreydon, Riccarton, and Avon, sat down with the Christchurch City Council to discuss unification. One argument often advanced in favour of amalgamation is that larger units of local government will result in economies of administration and services and in better service to the community. This must remain conjecture until amalgamation has taken place. One view can be that, given the same area and the same number of people, households and industries to service, the over-all costs of providing essential services are not likely to be much changed. Advocates of amalgamation cannot prove their case for economic advantages, because so much depends on the decisions and competence of people to be elected and appointed some time in the future. The best that can be said is that amalgamation can provide opportunities for economies and increased efficiency; it will be up to the new authority, its members and its officers, to take maximum advantage of those opportunities. At some point it can probably be shown that increasing the size of a local authority’s job may be counter-productive, politically and economically. Against this it may be said that no New Zealand city, and certainly not Christchurch, is overly large when compared with the size of cities that are run efficiently as one unit in other parts of the world. A great deal of the opposition to amalgamation arises from the belief that the smaller authorities are more personal, more sensitive to public demand, and offer a better way of life to their districts. Time and again when amalgamation is discussed, ratepayers from the smaller districts applaud their ease of access to councillors and officers, the expeditious dealing with problems and complaints, the community of interest, and what might be best described as “the local touch.” These arguments are attractive and probably more responsible than anything else for frustrating attempts at local government reform. Nevertheless, as population grows and the communities get larger, the preservation of boundaries that were appropriate to the past can run counter to the best interests of the larger community. Even in a metropolitan council, something of the local touch can be retained by the adoption, say, of a ward system. Very few people would argue today that past amalgamations should be undone and old divisions restored.

The revival of the amalgamation issue will probably renew old parochialisms and jealousies. If so, this is unfortunate. Regardless of whether some degree of amalgamation in Christchurch results from the passage of the Local Government Amendment (No. 2) Bill, it is a useful exercise to review the advantages and disadvantages from time to time. It is not putting on trial the performances of existing local bodies; nor is it ingratitude to the councils, past and present, who have served their districts well, to suggest that they might not be needed in future. The next review is likely to produce a scheme that will become the pattern of local government in Christchurch. No perfect answer is attainable; but the closer to the ideal it comes the better it will be for everyone in Christchurch — whoever is their rating authority. The chances of coming closer to the ideal will be greater if all concerned keep their minds open to the advantages and the disadvantages of change.