Elwood rejects electoral claim

Press, 27 June 1989, Page 3

Elwood rejects electoral claim

By

KAY FORRESTER

The Local Government Commission has rejected the claim by a member of the Canterbury Regional Council transition committee that Canterbury’s new regional boundaries were gerrymandered by the commission.

“The Press” reported on June 21 comments made by the Mayor of Timaru and a committee member, Mr Dave Walker, at the day before’s transition committee meeting. It was reported that he said the commission’s decision to allow only two constituencies for metropolitan Christchurch was “gerrymandering” and would give the Labour Party an advantage. It also reported Mrs Margaret Murray’s criticism of that decision as “stupid, grossly incompentent and lacking in integrity.”

The commission’s chairman, Mr Brian Elwood, yesterday said “The Local Government Commission totally rejects as without, foundation the allegation by Mr Dave Walker that the Canterbury regional boundaries were gerrymandered by the commission to give the Labour Party an advantage. The allegations are totally incorrect.

“Canterbury’s new regional boundaries were made having regard to provisions in the Local Government Amendment Act No. 3, 1988, and, in particular, having regard to the provisions in clause 8 of the first schedule of the act. “That requires that boundaries in every region shall conform so far as the commission considers practicable to boundaries of one or more water catchments. “Mr Walker appears to have confused the defini-

tion of regional bound-

aries and the establishment of electoral constituencies. Electoral constituencies are established by law for the purposes of enabling electors to vote for members of regional councils. The commission received a number of ob-

jections from South Canterbury to the effect that in estabishing the membership of the new Canterbury Regional Council, metropolitan Christchurch had too much representation to the detriment of the rest of the Canterbury region. “The commission had originally proposed that the Canterbury Regional Council would have 12 members from three constituencies within metropolitan Christchurch. The commission accepted the validity of the South Canterbury argument and reduced metropolitan Christchurch . numbers from 12 to 10 for the first election. “As metropolitan Christchurch was being divided into 12 electoral wards for the purposes of electing the new Christchurch City Council the commission was faced with the difficulty of combining those electoral wards for the purposes of establishing regional constituencies.

“As the electoral wards in metropolitan Christchurch contained approximately equal numbers of electors the task was to allocate 10 regional seats between 12 wards. “The only practical solution to this dilemma was two regional constituencies each electing five members. “The Local Government Commission unreservedly denies any political influence in its definition of boundaries or regional constituencies for elections of regional council-

lors. So far as the commission is concerned it has been impressed by the manner in which members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, have dealt with the commission. “Members of Parliament, representing both the Government and the Opposition, have from time to time presented submissions on aspects of reform as it was proper for them to do. No member of Parliament has applied any pressure or offered any inducement to the commission. “Parliament enacted the law governing the work of the commission. Both Government and Opposition members have allowed the commission to exercise its responsibility without pressure or influence. That is as it should be.

“The commission rejects criticisms of Mrs Margaret Murray as to its decision on Christchurch. “Her criticisms were unfair, unreasonable and unbecoming to Mrs Murray.

“The commission’s decision was made with integrity, to accord with law, and related to the reasonable objections of those outside Christchurch who considered that if the Canterbury Regional Council was to operate effectively it should not be dominated by Christchurch representatives. “Accordingly for the first election of the new Canterbury Regional Council there will be a better balance from within metropolitan Christchurch on one hand and from the rest of Canterbury on the other.”

Mr Elwood said all regional councils, were able to review their structure, within the law, after June, 1991.