United Council discusses future options

Press, 30 May 1985, Page 2

United Council discusses future options

Sharing costs with the Government and having elected and appointed representatives were possible future options discussed by the Canterbury United Council yesterday. These options came from a report about the council’s future, which was discussed with a Government task group studying existing regional government in New Zealand. The task groups chairman, Mr David Smith, said its function was to see where regional government should be going and what changes it needed. It was not involved with the Local Government Commission, which was looking at restructuring territorial local authorities. Several councillors said that the commission’s work would be important to the United Council. “The restructuring of territorial local authorities is our future,” said Cr Oscar Alpers. “It is vital that the two groups work in partnership to keep things parallel

rather than at cross-pur-poses.” Cr B. R. Shackel said that if the restructuring meant that Christchurch’s local authorities amalgamated into "one broad metropolitan mass,” the council would not be able to keep its present system of having representatives from the existing constitient authorities. “I think some of our discussions today will be quite ineffective because we don’t know what is going to happen to the local authorities yet,” he said. The council’s chairman, Sir Hamish Hay, advocated a “business as tisual” policy. “Whatever emerges from the restructuring will affect the United Council,” Sir Hamish said. “But we must take a positive! interest and assist in discussion on the changes. It may take many months before any consensus emerge':.” The report said that stronger links between the United Council and the Government would be desirable.

This could be achieved by having Government representatives on the council and by the Government sharing the funding of items of common interest to it and the council. Common interest items included studies on joint irrigation, regional energy planning, road programming, regional economics, public spending, and petrol rationing. The method of choosing council representatives brought a lot of debate. Most councillors appeared to favour a blend of appointed and elected council representatives. Cr Rex Lester said the United Council would find it difficult to change and grow while its members were appointed rather than elected. “There is a strong view that members should be elected,” he said. Cr Shackel said that a council of independently elected members tended to increase bureaucracy. “Look at the problems

Auckland had when it went to full elections,” he said. Cr T. M. Inch said a blend of elected and appointed councillors as outlined in the report was “the best bet.” “More important is getting Government departments to recognise the views of the region before they make decisions which affect the region,” he said. Stronger links with the Government would help overcome opposition to the council’s “regional voice.” The council decided to use the report as a basis for further discussions about the United Council, but did not adopt it as binding policy. After the meeting, Mr Smith said the Canterbury United Council appeared to be positive about regional government, which was good. He said the task group would report to the Minister of Local Government, Dr Bassett, about the meeting. Further discussions would be held later in the year.