Amalgamation

Press, 30 March 1989, Page 12

Amalgamation

Sir,—There are no surprises in the announcement of the Waimairi-Christchurch City nuptials; a typical marriage of convenience, with no need for a marriage broker, Philip Carter, to ride shotgun. Both the bride

and groom, although predictably playing hard to get, have long accepted the inevitability of their union, the only conflict being in the terms of the marriage contract. With the contract satisfactorily concluded, the bridegroom is theoretically head of the household, but the pseudo-reluc-tant bride can expect ultimate control of the extensive Canterbury estates. Moreover, her retinue of Waimairi heavies move in with her to keep the bridegroom and his retainers in line. The wedding party, more a deception than a reception, reveals the extent of the treachery. The real losers are the uninvited guests, the faithful of Waimairi, Riccarton and Heathcote, who have unceasingly opposed this unholy alliance and whose faith and hopes have been cruelly shattered. — Yours, etc., HAZEL TAIT. March 23, 1989.

Sir,—The latest unfortunate pronouncement by the Minister for Local Government, Dr Bassett, threatening councils that oppose his Draconian, forced amalgamation legislation, comes as no surprise. The Minister complains that these councils are using ratepayers’ money to oppose him. The truth is rather short of this. I gave my usual Labour Party contribution to the fighting fund appeal in Lyttelton; an idea perhaps for those who share my angst. Many more communities will be adversely affected by this Minister’s dictatorial antics than were by the infamous Muldoon fast-track regulations. Indeed, they will add considerably to this Government’s main growth policy, unemployment, with its resultant shattered lives. I am not opposed to local bodies amalgamating if it is to their mutual benefit, but let us give our politicians the message: Let the people affected decide by democratic vote. — Yours, etc., DOUG .ILLINGWORTH. March 26, 1989.