POLL OR NOT ?

Evening Post, Issue 36, 12 February 1935, Page 11

POLL OR NOT ?

AMALGAMATION ISSUE

A RESCINDING MOTION

'DEFEATED AT PETONE

The Petone Borough Council passed | at its meeting on January 28 the following resolution:—"That the question of amalgamation with the Lower Hutt Borough be referred to the incoming council, and that it is the opinion of . this council that it is not a question that should be put to the electors at the same time as a municipal election." At . the meeting of the council last evening ; Councillor D. M. Dickson moved that this resolution be rescinded, but his . motion was not carried, the only three voting for it being Councillors Dickson, E. N. Campbell, and V. A. Noble. Councillor Dickson said he did not propose to . offer any apologies for bringing the matter before the council again so soon after its last deliberation on the matter. On the contrary, he moved as he did because he now felt convinced that the council should not shelve this important matter. During- the discussion that took place at the last council meeting on the subject of amalgamation, said Mr. Dickson, it was clear that all the members of the council agreed that the electors of the borough \vere the people who ■ were entitled to decide the issue, and that it was not for the council as a body to endeavour to usurp this.prerogative. This point having been conceded, and bearing in mind the extraordinary agitation that -:ha'd lately arisen in some quarters for the amalgamation of the two boroughs, it seemed that circumstances had arisen which demanded that a poll of the electors of the borough should be taken on the question at an early date. He was aware that the electors themselves under section 141 (b) of the Municipal ■Corporations Act, 1933, had the statutory right on presenting a petition to the council signed by 10 per cent, of the electors to have a poll taken, but he was of the opinion that circumstances weresuch that the council should facilitate the taking of such a poll to ascertain the wishes of the electors and not •wait for the electors themselves to.take the first step in the matte,r. ■ The next point, said Mr.. Dickson, was to consider when a poll should be taken. To his mind the most convenient time for taking the poll was at the municipal election next May. •POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS. There were three objections that might be , advanced to a poll being •taken then, but in his view none of these objections could carry imich weight. The first objection that might be raised was that the taking of such a poll at the municipal elections would cloud the, issue in soifar as the municipal election itself was concerned. His answer to that was that in the past the question of'amalgamation" had been made a plank in the platform of candidates at municipal elections in the borough, and the raising of the issue now would no more cloud the issue; than it mighthave done in the past. The second objection: that might be advanced was that the adding of another voting pager to the sheaf that was handed out To voters at the municipal election would confuse the voters. His opinion on that was that the amalgamation issue was of suc^i.a. .vital nature thai - voters would, take care that they voted on it' whether^ they correctly dealt with other papers or not. "In any case, I submit we must credit the electors with some ins telligence on matters of. this- nature,'1, said Mr.' Dickson. •.* m- ; The"third objection that might.be advanced was that there was not, suffU cient time between now and. the.municipal election on the first Wednesday in May of this year to put .the position before'the electors. This, of course, must-' remain a matter of. individual opinion.- He personally "thought-- that the time was ample. He felt sure that the' Press would be only too willing to make their columns available^'to-any, contributor who desired to '.put information or views before the public either - for or against amalgamation. For the above reasons he • thought the poll should be taken at the forthcoming -municipal election and by having the poll then there was every ■probability of a strong representative vote being obtained. ,"I do not intend at this stage ,to say anything for or against amalgamationr as the scope of my motion is designed purely 'to give the council power to arrange for the poll to be taken; • ■ Until the motion passed on January; 28 on the question of amalgamation is rescinded the council by itself has not that power," concluded Mr. Dickson. "MADE A MISTAKE." In seconding the Rescinding motion, Councillor E. N. Campbell said he was quite prepared .to admit that he had_-made a mistake in voting to leav& the matter to the incoming' council. ' The council had shown a certain amount of timidity by adopting such a course. He was sure the Petone electors thoroughly understood the' position. The Mayor (Mr.. A. Scholefield) said that by rescinding the resolution they would be left where they were. It required another resolution. "I will do that," said Councillor Dickson. Continuing, the Mayor said that.the resolution showed there- had been a complete change-over.' The matter started with.a personal letter from the Mayor of Lower Hutt to himself, and he referred it to the council for a full discussion. Then withiri a week of that came a rescinding motion. It showed that full consideration had not been given to .the matter. If there was amalgamation it would" have to include the abutting bodies. If Petone and Lower Hutt were to work together the Hutt River Board would, have to work1 in with them. As soon as legislation could be obtained for bringing in--the Hutt River Board the , time would be opportune for the amalgamation proposal. Councillor Campbell asked if legislation' could be. put through the House, and the -Mayor..said he- could not answer .that question. The Mayor said that as-far as he personally was concerned he stood where he -did years ago and by A what he said at; the last council meeting. He did not change one iota. .Councillor E. T. E. Hogg said he could see no reason to alter, his decision of January 28. If" he was returned after the next election he would be prepared to let the proposal go before the electors in certain forms! He'did not think it was ah issue for "the electors on this occasion. As for ' the statement that the issue had been raised at elections in the past, as far as it being a plank on anyone's platform he doubted if it had been more than a splinter. It had never been of vital importance at an election, but there was a strong probability that it would influence the whole election if a poll was, taken in May. In this borough the issue was not a vital one at present, --'-.-^A" candidate would probably be returned on the amalgamation issue, whereas his duty was to serve to help to,, decide other issues. He did not think, the public of the borough could'be educated up to the issues, at stake in the time available. His opiniTO^as^hafrHh^Bepple^fsPetttae

would not agree to the amalgamation proposal. The. importance of the issue was such that it would be money well spent to provide a special poll later. ."TIME INOPPORTUNE." Councillor W. H. Edwards said he would adhere to his previous opinion. There would be a lot of issues'at the next election. He believed in the principles- of amalgamation, but the time was inopportune, and if the proposal was placed before the people of Petone it would be turned down at the.present time. Councillor V. A. Noble explained that he had been unable to attend the previous meeting because of ill health. At previous meetings of the council ihe had expressed the opinion that the .electors. should decide whether they would have amalgamation or not. He was, convinced that probably 90 per cent, of; the people of Petone would vote against amalgamation. He favoured the motion so that people of other districts could see that Petone did not want amalgamation. Councillor R. W. Toomath said he was quite certain in-his own mind that the proposal would be overwhelmingly defeated if a poll was taken in May. The matter was one of such importance that it would be a pity to go to the electors at an inopportune time and have it defeated. The Petone ratepayers felt certain that they would suffer ' from a financial viewpoint in the event of amalgamation. He agreed with Councillor Hogg that in a matter of such importance it could go along quietfy. The council and quite a lot of people in Lower Hutt: were in favour, of amalgamation; in. Petone the opposite view was held! In time the two points of view could probably be reconciled. Surely- a few months in consideration of the matter would not be time wasted. Councillor J.C. Burns spoke, against the motion. He said it would not be fair for thvV incoming council to be bound by a decision one way or the other. The -t;ew council would be in office for three years, and conditions might arise that would make the council change .the views that were held now. • What-surprised him was that a not altogether official letter from the Mayor of Lower Hutt to the Mayor of Petone could be what Councillor Dickson called "a matter of vital importance." He agreed with Councillor Hogg that the matter was not a vital one. It had not been brought up in Petone. Councillor G. London also spoke against the motion, saying he had not changed his mind. While Petone was claimed to have no foresight, he said, it was in the happy position of being able to take its own time. The motion, to rescind the original resolution was lost.