LOCAL BODIES

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 51, 2 March 1937, Page 6

LOCAL BODIES

AMALGAMATION BILL

PETONE COUNCIL'S VIEW

The Minister of Internal Affairs having invited local bodies to discuss the proposals outlined in the Local Government (Amalgamation Schemes) Bill, the Petone Borough Council last evening decided after a full discussion to recommend certain amendments to the Bill.

The Mayor stated that he had invited Mr. Ai G. Harper, of th.c Internal Affairs Department, to be present to answer questions.' The Mayor,'said the purpose of the Bill was to provide a simple means of bringing about a substantial reduction in the number of local authorities with a view to creating bigger and more satisfactory local government units. The Bill gave to local authorities or groups of local authorities the power to work out amalgamation schemes best suited to the requirements of their localities, but, at the same time, contained necessary provisions to prevent purely obstructive objections from preventing desirable amalgamations. Of late years he had not come across a person who was not in favour of a reduction in the number of local bodies. - : It was just a question as to which local bodies should, or should not, be amalgamated, or what areas should be combined to create an area which could be more economically administered by. bne authority, without any lessening of the efficiency of administration. In other words, it was a question of what methods were to be adopted to result in a reduction in the number of local bodies. A POLL PROPOSED. The Mayor proposed that the Minisn ter should be recommended ■to amend the.Bill in the direction of allowing a poll to be taken if any local body so desired or if a petition of 15 per cent, of the electors so desired and that the results of such poll be forwarded to the Minister for his consideration. He also proposed that it should be mandatory instead of optional for the Minister to refer a scheme for amalgamation to a commission. If, said the Mayor, a poll showed that, say,'Bo per cent, of the ratepayers: in a district were opposed the Minister would be bound to give that fact due consideration. ' , ■ Councillor D. M. Dickson said he did not consider the Mayor's proposed amendments went far enough. The Mayor's proposals merely made the taking of a poll optional, whereas .it should be mandatory. It was a paramount right of the people affected to say whether they wanted, amalgamation. Any scheme should lapse if it was not approved by the electors. Councillor Dickson put his opinions in the form of an amendment, which was seconded by Councillor A. Macfarlane. ' Councillor E. T. E. Hogg said it was inevitable that compulsory amalgamation should come and he was not prepared to go as far as Councillor Dickson. There were certain local bodies which might well come under the provisions of compulsory amalgamation, such as drainage- boards and rabbit boards which had jurisdiction within the area of another local body. The Bill, however, did not give adequate protection to dissentients. There ought to be a better right of appeal in the case of two separate bodies being asked to amalgamate. The title of the Bill gave'as the reason for amalgamation the diminishing of expenditure and greater, efficiency but later the Bill

added to these reasons the very vague provisions that amalgamation might ensue if it was of public or local advantage to do. so or otherwise desirable, The Bill as drafted might force amalgamation in the face of a dissentient majority. For example, Wellington might say it was desirable to amalgamate all the surrounding districts with the city and though the result might .mean increased • expenditure and even decreased efficiency the city would still be able to assert that it was in the public interest. There wasp he believed, a point where a local body might grow beyond the efficiency point and where expenditure would tend to increase. These , were the only reasons which should govern amalgamation and if increased , efficiency and decreased expenditure could not be proved amalgamation i should not be forced.. Another point , was that the Bill laid the onus ;of ' proving its case on the' objecting bodies. '. Provision should be made that after • a poll was taken and the objection to \ amalgamation upheld the onus then i should be placed on the proponents of , the scheme to prove the case. The [ final! deciding body should not be the ■. Minister but Parliament. Provision i should be'made also for the. objecting body to be represented on the com- ! mission which the Bill proposed to set .up. . . ■ ■ ' " ■ ' '.'.'■ SHIFTING THE ONUS. ', Councillor Hogg moved the followj ing further amendment to the resolution proposed by the Mayor:—

(a) That provision should be made for a poll of the ratepayers, if local bodies think necessary, which poll, if opposed to amalgamation, should throw the onus on the proponents to prove that amalgamation would diminish ex>penditure or promote efficiency.

(b) That provision- be made for dissenting local bodies to be represented on" the commission.

(c) That the grounds for amalgamation should be only permanent saving or greater efficiency.

(d) That if objected to the finding of the commission should be laid before Parliament and general effect be given by that body. , .

Councillor Dickson withdrew his amendment in favour of that moved by Councillor Hogg. ■

Councillor J. R. Gaynor said that neither the Mayor's resolution nor that moved by Councillor Hogg satisfied him. A poll of the ratepayers should be the deciding factor' for or against amalgamation and if councillors voted for either amendment or resolution they would be .betraying- the people who placed them in office.-

Councillor. Hogg's amendment was carried, the' Mayor and Councillors Huggan, Edwards, a*nd Cumming opposing it.

When the amendment became the motion" it was carried with . only Councillor Gaynor dissenting.