Bigger regional govt a ‘long-term interest’

Press, 19 July 1988, Page 4

Bigger regional govt a ‘long-term interest’

By GLEN PERKINSON An enlarged regional government area for Canterbury would be in the region’s long-term interests, said the chairman of the North Canterbury Catchment Board, Mr Richard Johnson. Mr Johnson told an information workshop on proposed future regional government for Canterbury that reverting to the “old provincial government boundaries down to and including the Waitaki River” would be advantageous.

He said that the present Canterbury United Council and catchment board boundaries would include just three territorial authorities outside one metropolitan city after the Local Government Commission makes its reorganisation plans known. He also rejected the preferred option of a new regional council advocated in the United Coun-cil-Catchment Board consultants’ report. That option chose a council that would encompass regional planning, ports, energy distribution, public transport and airports, water and soil conservation, sewage, refuse

and hazardous waste management, economic promotion, education, health, civil defence and catchment and reserve works. Mr Johnson said he wanted no part of a council that was involved in "regional trading enterprises” such as port, transport or energy distribution. What he and the Catchment Board envisaged was a regional council involved only in regional planning, catchment work and civil defence — a strict amalgamation of the United Council and boarc functions.

Yesterday’s workshop was an endeavour to' ge: the region’s local government representatives to agree on a proposal fothe new council. Mr Trevor Inch, the United Council’s deputy chairman and its regional planning committee chaiiman, said that the Gov ernment’s recent arnouncement of the schedule to the Local Government Amendmeit Bill indicated a new rt-. gional government would have comprehensive functions. He said the schedule ;o the act said that regional

councils would be responsible for .everything mentioned in the Town and Country Planning Act schedule, urban transport, maritime planning, the catchment board’s functions and civil defence. Mr Malcolm Douglass, the United Council’s chief executive, told the meeting that “the majority of constituent councils favoured the continuation of regional functions by a regional council.” He said that the Christchurch City Council held a “unique” position and one “apparently different from any other within New Zealand.” The City Council has proposed a single metropolitan council which would administer regional functions through a joint standing committee. “A regional council is an essential element in the balance of Canterbury’s democratic government, is necessary to satisfactory future planning and protection of the environment, provides a bridge between town and country, and is essential as a voice for the region as a whole,” Mr Douglass said. Twelve of 18 constituent

authorities of the United Council favoured the framework outlined by the consultants’ report, he said.

Another speaker at yesterday’s forum was Professor Barry Johnston, of the University of Canterbury geography department.

He said that Canterbury had to face up to what had been set down for it by the Government. The schedule to the Local Government Amendment Act clearly spelled out the functions of a future regional council. Now, the new regional council had to ensure that it was a voice that was clearly heard by the Government against others that sought financial support. Mrs Margaret Murray, the United Council’s chairman, told the meeting that it was wrong to assume that the section of the schedule that referred to single metropolitan authorities being able to administer functions for the whole region was applicable to Canterbury. She predicted that it referred to Marlborough and the East Cape.