LOCAL BODIES

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20899, 1 December 1937, Page 6

LOCAL BODIES

THE AMALGAMATION SCHEME COMMITTEE OF HOUSE TAKES EVIDENCE By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, November 30. When the Local Government (Amalgamation Schemes) Bill Committee met to commence the taking of evidence on the Bill, arguments were put forward in support of the co-ordination of local bodies under the Town Planning Act, 1929, and the president of the Municipal Association of New Zealand supported both regional planning and amalgamation. The Association, he said, had made no objection to the Bill at its last conference, and his suggestion that the Town Planning Act should be put into operation to facilitate the proposals of the Bill had been received without any opposition. There was opposition to amalgamation from employees of local bodies who feared that it would mean the loss of employment, he said, and that fear should be removed. The amalgamation of boroughs was opposed by the representative of the Sumner Borough Council. Compulsion Disliked The first witness was the president of the Municipal Association of New Zealand, Mr T. Jordan, Mayor of Masterton, who said the general opinion was one of opposition to the compulsory nature of the amalgamation proposed. A survey was asked for before amalgamation was undertaken. It was held by some that interests in county councils and town boards were so involved that amalgamation would not be advisable. It was also felt that amalgamation should not be undertaken unless such amalgamation would lead to a saving in costs. Mr Jordan said he thought he was justified in saying that the Association as a whole definitely approved the principle of the Bill, but he thought that hospital boards, harbour boards, etc., should have been included for the rationalisation of local body government. He considered that the compulsory powers had some justification. In one case a motion to discuss the question with another local body had been defeated on the casting vote of the mayor. The Association had asked for a commission to investigate local body government but nothing had been done. The Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon. W. E. Parry, said the proposed commission would have the final say on amalgamation, and he would not be able to act before receiving a recommendation from the commission.

Causes of Apprehension

Mr J. Campbell, on behalf of the Hawera, Waitara, Eltham, and Inglewood Borough Councils, and the Kaponga, Manaia and Normanby town districts, said he had not come either to praise the Bill or condemn it. The bodies he represented thought that there must be justification for it, but wished to have some provisions written in which they thought necessary. They thought that whenever objections were made to an amalgamation proposal the project should go to a commission and not only when there were what the Minister thought material objections, as the Bill provided that a majority should be sufficient in the appointment of commissioners Instead of unanimity being required. The main causes of their apprehension, however, were the clauses which said a borough or town district could be compelled to amalgamate with a county within which it was situated. Normanby, for instance, would be harshly treated, because It was not in debt. He did not worry at the thought of being dispossessed, and he thought nobody else would have that feeling, but he favoured the taking of polls. Mr J. Thorn, M.P., who was to the chair in the afternoon when Mr Campbell spoke, suggested that the Bill provided for the Minister to appoint a commission when local bodies were not unanimous because otherwise minorities might not get representation. Mr Parry said that was the reason for the clause being drafted that way. Asked by Colonel Hargest, M.P., why a place like Normanby should object to being absorbed by the county, Mr Campbell said it was not because of lack of community of interest but because the town outlook and the county outlook was different. He entirely disagreed with Mr Jordan that town and country interests could function together efficiently. “We have every amenity to Hawera and we are the lowest rated town of the class in Taranaki,” he said. “We would definitely resist any suggestion that New Plymouth should control us.” Mr Parry remarked that there were towns administered in a creditable manner by counties. It was not intended that the Bill should apply to large boroughs and those progressing, but the Government did think that a lot of small town districts could be administered better by counties. He did not desire the Minister to have any outstanding powers as long as the Bill would work. He asked what would be said if the Bill were to contain a clause limiting amalgamations to bodies of less than a certain population. Mr Campbell replied that there would still be objections from progressive bodies. To-morrow evidence will be given by. Mr J. O’Shea on behalf of the Municipal Association and the Wellington City Council, Mr E. P. Norman on behalf of the Wellington City Council, and by representatives of the Christchurch City Council and New Brighton Borough Council.