Merger of C.U.C. and Catchment Board ‘sensible first step’

Press, 1 July 1988, Page 3

Merger of C.U.C. and Catchment Board ‘sensible first step’

A merger between the Canterbury United Council and the North Canterbury Catchment Board would see the first election of a Canterbury regional council in October next year.

A Catchment Board meeting today will debate the framework recommended for the merger and election of a regional council. It will be the last chance for the $54,000 report commissioned by the two authorities to be approved and sent to the Local Government Commission for consideration before it makes its recommendations next month. The merger of the United Council and the Catchment Board was a sensible first step towards an efficient regional council, the report said. The United Council voted on Wednesday only to receive the report and discuss it next -month. United councillors and staff have accused advocates of the Christchurch City Council’s one-city proposal of sabotaging the meeting in an aim to have the report buried. But according to the council’s chief executive, Mr Malcolm Douglass, the Catchment Board can adopt the strategies in principle and forward the recommendations to the commission. The City sees no need for a regional council. It thinks an areawide voice can be achieved by the joint standing committee integral to its one-city proposal. The City’s proposal forsees the standing committee as the machinery by

“which a number of districts... can exercise their regional responsibilities — it is not another tier of government.” The committee’s functions would include regional planning, civil defence, replacement of the District Roads Council, a regional advocate, a link with the Canterbury Development Council, and maximisation of regional resources. But the consultant’s report to the United Council said the requirement for a strenthened regional government would not be altered if there was one metropolitan city or a multi-district city. But one city would “compete more directly with the region in terms of power and identity.” One city would “not be an appropriate body to handle the functions which have been identified as regional.” The report concluded that a minimum of 17 elected members would be needed to form the new regional government. There should be four to seven wards each combining both urban and rural characteristics. The new council would comprise seven committees dealing with each of its activities. There would be policy, works, planning, environmental management, information, economic and corporate

services committees. Each would have a manager that would be responsible to the council’s chief executive. The incorporation of regional trading enterprises (R.T.E.S) under the new council’s wing is important to its structure. The new council would oversee the enterprises while they were run by boards of directors. The new council would take control of regional planning, maritime planning, transport planning, water and soil conservation, environmental management, health care, ports, energy supply and distribution, major reserves, primary education and economic promotion. In the event of devolution of functions from the Government the regional council might also oversee tertiary and secondary education, vocational training, police and traffic enforcement, consumer protection and fire services. The report also believes a regional council’s responsibilities would also include functions at present looked after by the City Council — libraries, community welfare, water supply, housing and public health. The Government is expected to announce its policies on local and regional government reorganisation early next

month and the two ■ authorities hoped to have their aims in the hands of the Minister of Local Government before that announcement. The Catchment Board’s chairman, Mr Richard Johnson, attacked the United Council for its indecision. He believed, however, that regardless of the two . authorities’ proposal the Government would force amalgamation of the council and board and a direct election to be held next October. However, the Mayor of Christchurch, Sir Hamish Hay, believed there would be no need for a regional authority if his council’s plan for an enlarged metropolitan council was adopted. Sir Hamish has told the United Council that the . Local Government Commissioner, Mr Brian Elwood, said that there were areas in New Zealand where a regional government tier was not needed. “He was referring to - Christchurch when he said that,” Sir Hamish said. The Minister of Local Government, Dr Bassett, said at a recent Local ~ Government Association conference in Christ- ; church that regional gov- ■ ernment tiers might not be necessary in some areas.