Halt in Amalgamation Plan

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20731, 19 May 1937, Page 13

Halt in Amalgamation Plan

County Representatives s Rescind Motion L Majority of One Decides J By rescinding the decision of an earlier conference • the representatives of the four counties of South Canterbury, at a meeting in Timaru’ yesterday, by one vote called a halt in the amalgamation plan for the ; district. It was agreed at a similar conference in April that the principle of two counties for South Canterbury be affirmed and that the four county chairmen and engineers go into the question of boundaries and other details. Yesterday the meeting was to have their report, but the rescission of the motion leading up to the preparation of the report made - further discussion unnecessary. Mr John Bitchener, chairman of the Waimate County Council, presided over an attendance of 25 councillors.

The chairman explained that at the initial meeting of county representatives it had been decided By 23 votes to five that the conference agree to the principle of two counties for South Canterbury, and that a committee comprising the four county chairmen and engineers be formed to go into the question of boundaries and other details regarding the two counties and report to a further meeting. Since then Mr T. B. Garrick, chairman of the Levels County Council, had presented a notice of motion asking that the previous resolution be rescinded.

. Ip moving tlie reclssion of the previous resolution, Mr T. B. Garrick (chairman of the Levels County Council) said his county would neither support nor oppose amalgamation until the'Government had put its proposals into an Act of Parliament and made (clear provision for a referendum of coupty electors to decide for or against amalgamation. The necessity for the Government to clarify its proposals ■was shown by the fact that the Minister, a few days ago, when pressed to say what his proposals were, admitted that he had not thought them out and that the schemes he had been submitting to county councils were only meant to test the feelings of councils. He had definitely refpsed to commit himself to any fixed scheme. ‘‘lt Is, therefore, evident that we have been discussing a will-o’-the-wisp, and my council refuses any longer to be associated with such an unbusinesslike proceeding. If the Government passes definite amalgamation legislation, the Level* County Council will give it fair and impartial consideration and leave the decision to the electors. Until then we will have no more to do with what has been going on,” declared Mr Garrick. “When five or six of us met the Minister at Fairlie he seemed to mesmerise most of us,” continued Mr Garrick. The Minister talked and talked and, in the speaker’s opinion, no one knew what really happened. The whole thing was premature and the meeting should never have taken place. The Councils should have waited until the Bill went through Parliament. The Counties' Association had asked Parliament if it could give it something to go on regarding amalgamation, but Parliament had replied that it could not. Fair Deal for Ratepayers The motion was seconded by Mr W. R. Davison (Mackenzie) who contended that no one representative of the ratepayers could conscientiously support amalgamation at the present time. Ninety per cent of the Mackenzie ratepayers were against it, and it was the duty of the Council to see that the ratepayers received a fair deal. Opposition to the motion was offered by Mr K. Mackenzie (Geraldine) who denied that the Counties had been stampeded into amalgamation. They had been asked simply to submit a proposal to the Minister and that was what was being done. The local newspapers had not been fair to the county councils of the district. The members were not the fools that the papers made them out to be. They were not filching any of the rights of the ratepayers. but it must be realised that the Government was obliged to deal with the representatives of the ratepayers. Rather than let the matter go to a commission the Counties had thought It far better to put forward some scheme on their own for the whole of South Canterbury. When the Bill went through the House, and there was no doubt that it would go through, the South Canterbury counties would have made the best of a bad bargain and would have done something themselves which might be Infinitely better than the recommendations of a commission. The opposition from the two counties that had to be absorbed could be quite easily understood, continued Mr Mackenzie, but wa* amalgamation, as suggested, going to be ietrlmental? He did not think It was. If the resolution was rescinded was Levels going to agree to? Was it to be one county when the Minister’s proposals went through? There was no doubt that one county was far too large and it was far better to arrive at a scheme amongst themselves in preference to having the boundaries and details arranged by a commission. If the meeting favoured a stay order of proceedings that would be all right, but -re did not favour rescinding the previous resolution. Since last meeting the feelings of two lots of ratepayers had been expressed, •aid Mr George Murray (Mackenzie)

and the expression had been against amalgamation. He considered that the local newspaper had been very fair in

the matter. The Minister nad told them that he had not made any arrangements and in his (Mr Murray's) opinion they should see the Act first before anything was done. “We are trying to go too fast,” he added. Should Have Something Definite Mr Peter Kidd (Mackenzie) expressed pleasure that the motion had been brought forward, as it gave representatives an opportunity to change their minds. While he was not opposed to the principle of amalgamation he thought that the Government should take the first step in bringing the legislation forward. While In many areas in the Dominion amalgamation was desirable, there was no urgent need for it in South Canterbury where the position was different. It was wrong, also, he considered, that the scheme should be put forward without an expression of opinion from the ratepayers. They were endeavouring to proceed with a scheme without detailed Information as to efficiency and cost. They should have something definite to work on as at present they were in the dark. He suggested that the meeting should stay its hands/until the Bill had passed through Parliament. They could be no worse off and would probably be better off through waiting. Referring to the influence of politics in the matter Mr Kidd said that if it were seen that the ratepayers were against amalgamation he did not think that the Government would force the issue through. If a Commission were set up and qualified men came to South Canterbury they might recommend that the district be left as at present, and the Minister would surely be bound to adopt the report. The opinion that nothing fresh had been introduced since last meeting was expressed by Mr W. Lindsay (Waimate), who contei.ded that the question of submitting the matter to the ratepayers could be considered later on. South Canterbury should go ahead and put its house in order. Mr A. F. Campbell (Mackenzie) said that the Minister’s statement at the original meeting that if the counties did not do something, he would, had been taken as a veiled threat. They had done something and had regretted it

ter had told them the Bill was going to become law. The details had not been fixed, but the principle was clearly defined. In the circumstances it behoved the counties to take steps to bring about the best scheme themselves. Three questions, said Mr Johnstone, arose:

(1) Had the position altered since the former resolution was carried? Personally he could not see that it had. (2) In face of the known facts, was the conference wrong in carrying that resolution?'He thought they rightly had a search for something that would suit the four counties in preference to some possibly nebulous scheme that the Minister might bring down. They were making an attempt to adopt the best attitude if they were forced into the position. If it came to a case of the Minister backing down, and he did not think it would, nothing would be lost, but if they were forced into the position would it not be better to be prepared? (3) Was that conference on April 8 acting in the best interests of the ratepayers of the four counties in carrying the resolution? He considered that the decision was in the best interests of the ratepayers. They were searching for a better scheme than something that might be forced upon them. They were doing their job. “We might be forced into fighting the recommendations of a commission,” continued Mr Johnstone. "We do not want amalgamation but we want to be prepared. They had tried to make a wise precaution to checkmate the possibility of a more serious position arising. He thought that the ratepayers must give them credit that they were not going to support something that would increase their own indebtedness. If the Minister was going to put the principle into effect the details would come later. They were not going to put the scheme through but simply listen to one. A certain amount had been said about the Minister stampeding them into amalgamation but so far as he was concerned such was not the case, nor did it arise. They had been told that a certain thing was going to happen and that that principle was going to be put on the Statute Book. Should they not try to arrive at something themselves, which he felt would be better than something arrived at by others? An Alternative Scheme Mr H. M. Whatman (Waimate) explained that the scheme the counties , had in mind was an alternative in the event of amalgamation being forced upon them. It was opportune to arrive at something and be prepared if the big stick was to be used and there was no other way out. Mr C. J. Talbot (Mackenzie) drew attention to what had already been decided, and contended that if the present resolution were carried the

afterwards. They might have all been convinced that things were better as at present, and delegates had voted against their convictions. If they wanted something done let the Minister do it. County representatives should stick to their own opinions. Mr H. B. S. Johnstone (Waimate) emphasised that from what the Mlpls-

the action that had been taken was not premature. They had acted quickly, but not without due consideration. Since the last conference the position had not altered at all, and he did not think that the meetings that had been held were proper indications of the feelings of the ratepayers of the district. A similar view that things had not altered was expressed by the chairman. Two indignation meetings had been held, but so far as he could gather there had not been much enthusiasm displayed. Mr Garrick had said that the Minister had stampeded them into something. That was quite wrong, as the Minister had said that if they had anything better than a suggestion that there be one county, they should formulate ths plan and he would listen. Mr Garrick had called the meeting to devise something better.

Mr Bitchener emphasised that Waimate County wanted to be left alone. It did not want to aggregate more territory, but if the counties had to get together it was prepared to assist in devising the best scheme possible. It was evident that the Government intended to do something, and as reasonable men the county representatives should formulate something without having to be driven to a commission to plead their case. They could certainly, he thought, make a better bargain than have one county as a commission might recommend. He knew from experience that many districts in New Zealand should have been amalgamated years ago. In South Canterbury council members were unanimous that they did not want amalgamation, but if they did not to something the Government certainly would. Calling of First Meeting Mr Garrick (to the chairman): I want to have it out with you about calling that first meeting after we met the Minister. All you chairmen asked me to call the meeting in Timaru. That remark of yours should be withdrawn as it was most unjust. I called the meeting at the instigation of all of you. Mr Johnstone: You had to do as you were told. (Laughter). Mr Garrick (to the chairman): I called that meeting at your instigation. The chairman: Not at my instigation. Mr Garrick: Well at whose instigation? I called that meeting because our headquarters are in Timaru, which is the centre. It I carried out the instructions and feelings of my ratepayers I would not have been here today. I never was in favour of amalgamation! and never will be. A voice: It was your good nature. (Laughter). “This is no laughing matter," replied Mr Garrick heatedly. “I want this meeting business cleared up. I am certainly not going to take the blame for

counties would place themselves in a difficult position and stultify themseluves. At Fairlie the Minister did not hold the big stick over the representatives. He brought the principle of the Bill before them and asked them if they could not get together and formulate a plan for one county instead of four. The compulsion from the Minister actually consisted of them getting together and arriving at something. Mr Garrick had inferred that there was some "will o’ the wisp" at Fairlie. It should not be forgotten, however, the “The Timaru Herald” had itself pointed out the absurdity of the number of local bodies in New Zealand. The Counties Act aimed at trying to get counties to consider amalgamation themselves, but they would not do it. He was strongly in favour of amalgamation. In the first place the conference had carried by a large majority a proposal to have two counties in South Canterbury, but to come there to-day and say that they voted for something in which they did not believe, was not very convincing. To be stampeded by the newspapers and ratepayers into a change of face was not a very strong thing. The indignation meeting of ratepayers of Levels was small but the Mackenzie meeting was larger. Mr Davison had said that 90 per cent of the ratepayers of Mackenzie were against amalgamation. “We do not know that,” added' Mr Talbot. It had been said also that the ratepayers gave them no mandate to vote for amalgamation. The Minister, it should be remembered, asked them to get together and they came to the meeting with a free hand and a free mind in the matter. They were not a properly constituted legal body. All they could do was to consider proposals and submit them back to the county councils concerned. Those who did not agree could make their protest, and it would then become a matter for a commission. He did not think for a moment that the majority would agree to amalgamation. Unduly Worked Up Mr Talbot pointed out that for years the Counties Act had given them power to amalgamate, but nothing had been done. It was difficult, he said, to consider a referendum as any Government would find it difficult to provide for such a clause in an Act. Generally ratepayers took little interest in such a poll. In his opinion the matter had been unduly worked up by the newspapers, and the question was more or less one of tactics. One could not gauge what would happen, but if they turned the whole thing down it would make them look very foolish. In his opinion

calling a meeting I was asked to call. Addressing Mr Talbot, Mr Garrick continued: “Surely Mr Talbot is as much to blame for calling that meeting as I am!” “I know I was,” replied Mr Talbot. “You simply called the meeting out of courtesy to the Minister. You were asked to call it.” Councillors were simply servants of the ratepayers, said Mr Garrick in replying to the discussion, and should take notice of the wishes of the ratepayers.

Mr Talbot: If we get a meeting in favour of amalgamation and we can get one, what would be the position then? "There would be only you and Mr Jeune present, and it would be the same in the other counties,” said Mr Garrick. In his opinion Parliament did not intend that counties of their size should go in for amalgamation. Mr Mackenzie had said that no one in Geraldine was against amalgamation, but he was wrong. "They have said nothing to me about it if they are against it,” replied Mr Mackenzie. “They know that you are an amalgamating man,” said Mr Garrick, who explained that several had communicated with him in the matter. Motion Carried The motion was declared carried by 13 votes to 12. , Mr Garrick: Hurray! Hurray! The voting was: For: Messrs T. B. Garrick, R. G. Cleland, J. E. P. Cameron, D. Grant, T. W, Brosnahan, G. Murray, A. F. Campbell, W. R. Davison, P. Kidd, A. Mackenzie, T. Lyon, Ross Brodie and A. Bisdee. Against: The chairman and Messrs C. Ley, K. Mackenzie, H. B. S. Johnstone, H. M. Whatman, N. A. Rattray, A. S. Elworthy, W. Lindsay, J. W. Hayes, R. Sinclair, C. J. Talbot and J. Acland. “I hope that the vote is in the right direction," said the chairman. Mr Garrick had engineered matters well, and he hoped that things would turn out satisfactorily.

In thanking delegates for their support Mr Garrick reiterated that he was not going to be accused of calling meetings. Mr Talbot moved a vote of thanks to Mr Garrick for calling the first meeting. He said that someone had to do it, and Mr Garrick had made the arrangements. Mr Garrick had simply called members together. The motion was carried, a similar compliment being paid the chairman.