THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1986. Looking at city changes

Press, 19 February 1986, Page 18

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1986. Looking at city changes

Christchurch councillors will learn this evening what plan the Local Government Commission has devised for altering the administration of the city. For as long as most people can remember, various plans have been worked out by a succession of commissions. With the exception of the amalgamation that produced the present Paparua County by merging the Halswell County and Paparua, Christchurch has seen little change in local government territories for 40 years. In the more distant past, the old boroughs disappeared — Sydenham, Linwood, St Albans, Sumner, New Brighton, Spreydon and Woolston; and no-one would seriously argue for their revival as separate, local administrations. Since then, the metropolitan area has grown and the functions of local government have multiplied. With this growth, anomalies have arisen. A few have been ironed out through minor adjustments to boundaries. Nevertheless, commissions and reports and negotiations have failed to budge Christchurch from its present divisions. Metropolitan administration is not, of course, a disaster in Christchurch; yet a familiar pattern is not necessarily the best or fairest. Tonight, the. chairman of the commission will announce what the commission considers to be an improvement. On the example of every other attempt to reform the structure of local government, much of the reaction will be immediately negative. This will not be as it should be. Elsewhere, the response to the

commission’s investigations and soundings of opinion have ranged from reason and interest to a flat unwillingness even to talk about reforms. Some people have rejected plans outright; others, however, have been ready to consider proposals and to let the idea sink in and germinate. Christchurch councillors should be ready to sit back and consider the scheme — whatever it may be. A hasty response would be unwise, for this commission is different from its predecessors. It means business, even though public opinion can determine the final result. Reform has been expected for so long that, perhaps, this time it will be accepted. The arguments for change are not always founded on economies. For some ratepayers, an amalgamation will mean greater cost. It may also mean services and activities that were not available before. Some will say that they do not want these anyway. This raises the question of what services they have been getting from neighbouring areas without paying for them. It raises the question of standards that are accepted, for a price, that ratepayers in some areas are accustomed to expect and do not want diminished once these standards have been set. This evening’s announcement should be looked at with respect. Perhaps, in the end, it will be rejected by popular vote. Before that, it should be examined carefully and dispassionately. Setting aside the known, entrenched pattern and accepting that a new idea may have benefits is rarely easy. This time, the effort to do so must be made.