CHOOSING A COUNCIL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20601, 27 June 1930, Page 12

CHOOSING A COUNCIL.

In declining to entertain the idea of dividing the city into wards for electoral purposes, the City Council has thrown away an opportunity for doing Auckland a much-needed service; and by the manner of the rejection councillors have shown a regrettable indisposition to deal with the idea on its merits. No straightforward answer has been given in the committee's report to the main argument for introducing the suggested change—that it would do away with the absurd position created by compelling voters to consider a long list of candidates who are mostly no more than names to the great body of electors. As a rule, some sixty names are in the list, and the voter's task of selecting from this list a council of twentyone is often either done blindly or given up in despair. That councillors are themselves of the opinion that some sort of change is necessary may be reckoned to them for praiseworthy modesty. It would have been otherwise had they declared that the prevailing method produced a thoroughly good council. But they have baulked at the real issue. It is not, as the committee says, the need to reduce the number of informal votes that impels adoption of the ward system, and to propose marking the names of favoured candidates with a cross, instead of drawing a line through unwelcome names, does nothing to obviate the real difficulty. The contention that the ward system oLcouncil election would complicate the voting in the hospital, harbour, transport and power board contests is without reason: the difficulty has not arisen, and is not likely to arise, in those contests. In the case of the council, electors cannot make a fully discriminating choice, and the ward system is the only feasible remedy. For the proposal to reduce the number of councillors there is something to be said. There is no need for twenty-one, the full number allowod by law. Every borough having a population of more than 30,000 may, at its discretion, have a council of from twelve to twenty-one. Christchurch has sixteen councillors, Wellington fifteen, and Dunedin twelve. Do Auckland councillors think that their work is better done because of their larger number 1 A reduction in the membership of the council would not, however, remove electors' difficulties. If it came to choosing only a dozen names from a list of sixty there would be an increased, not a decreased, advantage for the small number of candidates generally known, and a greater difficulty of infusing the council with a little requisite new blood.