H—2B
1950 NEW ZEALAND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION (REPORT OF THE) FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH, 1950
Presented to Both Houses of the General Assembly Pursuant to Section 27 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946
Sir,— Wellington, Ist August, 1950. I have the honour to forward you herewith, in terms of section 27 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946, the third annual report of the Local Government Commission, for the year ended 31st March, 1950. Yours faithfully, I. J. Goldstine, Judge, Chairman. The Hod. the Minister of Internal Affairs, Wellington.
CONTENTS PAGE I. Introductory .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 11. Procedure .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 111. Polls .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..6 IV. Change of Status .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 V. Progress of General Review .. .. .. .. .. 8 VI. Alteration of Boundaries : Involving Public Inquiries— General .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 (1) Christchurch Metropolitan Local Government: Christchurch City; Hals well, Heathoote, Paparua, and Waimairi Counties .. .. .. 10 (2) Lyttelton Borough : Mount Herbert County .. .. .. 14 (3) Palmerston North City : Kairanga County .. .. .. 16 (4) Papatoetoe Borough : Manukau County .. .. .. .. 16 (5) Tauranga Borough : Tauranga County .. .. .. .. 19 (6) Rotorua County: Taupo County .. .. .. .. 19 (7) Matamata County : Taupo County .. .. .. .. .. 19 (8) Matamata County : Rotorua County .. .. .. .. .. 20 (9) Tauranga County : Rotorua County .. .. .. .. .. 20 (10) Wellington City: Makara County .. .. .. .. 20 (11) Wellington City : Hutt Valley Electric-power District .. .. ..26 (12) Local Authorities in the Rural Areas of North Canterbury: Paparua, Eyre, Malvern, Ellesmere, and Selwyn Counties .. .. .. 26 VII. Alteration of Boundaries : Not Involving Public Inquiries—(l) Whakatane Borough: Whakatane County .. .. .. 40 (2) Waipa County: Raglan County .. .. .. .. 40 (3) Kaikoura River District .. .. .. .. .. .. 41 (4) Grey Electric-power District: Buller Electric-power District .. .. 41 (5) Waitaki Electric-power District .. .. .. .. .. .. 41 (6) Thames Valley Electric-power District and Tauranga Electric-power District .. 42
H—2B
2
CONTENTS —continued VIII. Union and Merger op Districts : Involving Public Inquiries— page (1) (a) Christchurch City : Riccarton Borough .. .. .. .. 42 (b) Christchurch City : Lyttelton Borough .. .. .. .. 42 (2) Wellington City : Johnsonville Town District .. .. .. .. 42 (3) Ellesmere County : Southbridge Town District .. .. .. .. 42 (4) (a) Ellesmere, Halswell, Heathcote, Paparua, Springs and Waimairi Counties .. 42 (b) Ellesmere County : Leeston Town District .. .. .. .. 42 (5) Ashley, Eyre, Kowai, Oxford and Rangiora Counties .. .. .. 42 —tr-ffti Akaroa, Mount Herbert and Wairewa Counties .. .. .. .. 42 (7) Malvern, Selwyn and Tawera Counties .. .. .. . . .. 42 IX. Abolition of Districts : Involving a Public Inquiry—(l) Christchurch Drainage District .. .. .. .. . . . . 42 (2) Christchurch Tramway District .. .. .. .. .. .. 42 X. Abolition of Districts : Not Involving Public Inquiries—(l) Ahikouka River District .. .. .. .. .. 42 (2) Kahutara River District .. .. .. .. .. .. 42 (3) South Wairarapa River District .. .. .. .. .. .. 42 (4) Te Ore Ore River District .. .. .. .. .. 42 (5) Waiohine River District .. .. .. .. .. 42 XI. Functions Transferred : Involving a Public Inquiry— Ashley, Eyre, Kowai, Oxford and Rangiora County Councils : Waimakariri-Ashley Water Supply Board .. .. .. .. .. .. 43 XII. Functions Transferred : Not Involving a Public Inquiry— Kaituna River Board : Tumu Kaituna and Te Puke Drainage Boards .. 43 XIII. Constitution of District : Involving a Public Inquiry— Constitution of Independent Town District: Tawa Flat - Linden Localities in Makara County .. .. .. .. .. .. 44 XIV. Constitution of District : Not Involving a Public Inquiry— Tuapeka Rabbit District .. .. .. .. .. .. 44 XV. Change of Status : Not Involving a Public Inquiry— Runanga Urban Fire District .. .. .. .. .. 45 XVI. Other Public Inquiries Held — (1) Local Government: North Shore Area, Auckland; Birkenhead, Devonport, Northcote, and Takapuna Boroughs; Waitemata County; Rangitoto and Herald (Pine) Islands .. .. .. .. .. .. 45 (2) Local Government: Auckland Metropolitan Area and Environs ; Auckland City; Ellerslie, Henderson, Manurewa, Mount Albert, Mount Eden, Mount Roskill, New Lynn, Newmarket, Onehunga, One Tree Hill, Otahuhu, Papakura, and Papatoetoe Boroughs; Glen Eden and Howick Town Districts; Mount Wellington, Orapiu, Panmure Township, and Western Waiheke Road Districts ; Manukau and Waitemata Counties ; Auckland and Waitemata Electric-power Districts; Auckland Metropolitan Drainage and Fire Districts; Auckland Harbour and Hospital and Milk and Transport Boards .. .. .. 46 XVII. Miscellaneous — (1) Fire Districts .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. 48 (2) Rabbit Districts .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 49 (3) Constitution of District Committees .. .. .. .. .. 50 (4) Unimproved-value Rating System—Poll of Ratepayers : Christchurch Drainage District .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 50 (5) Electric-power Supply .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 50 (6) Tauranga Borough : Mount Maunganui Borough .. .. . . 50 Tauranga Borough Council: Tauranga Harbour Board .. ~ 59 (7) Waihi Borough .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 50 (8) Karapiro Lake Domain .. .. .. .. .. .. 51 (9) Commissioner Control: Localities of Porirua and Titahi Bay in Makara County 52 XVIII. Matters Under Consideration .. .. .. .. .. .. 52 XIX. Staff .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 53 XX. Conclusion .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 54 Appendix .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 55-58
H—2B
3
REPORT 1. INTBODUCTORY In presenting our annual report for the year ended 31st March, 1950, we have considered it desirable to refer to the procedure which has been generally adopted by the Commission, and revised to meet varying circumstances as they have arisen. Reference was made to this question in our first report in 1948, but in view of the observations which have been made from time to time concerning the procedure of the Commission, we have considered it desirable to refer to the matter more fully. The various matters on which decisions have been reached by the Commission during the past year have been tabulated in the Appendix hereto, and reference is made at a later stage in this report to matters which are outstanding. The reorganization of local government which is being undertaken by us is becoming better understood and appreciated not only by local authorities, but by the public generally, and as a result a rapid increase is taking place in the volume of work submitted to the Commission. This may be attributed to the public hearings which have been held in various parts of the Dominion, and the wide publicity which is given by the Commission in its notifications to the many interests concerned in local government. The press, too, has played no small part in publicizing the work of the Commission. The approach by way of requests from local authorities is assisting in no small measure in the work of reorganization, and we have found that a great deal of co-operation is being extended to us in the exercise of our functions both by local authorities and their officers. Reviewing our activities over the past three years, we are satisfied that there is a genuine desire, by those intimately associated with local government, for its reform. Except in certain major cases, we have found it unnecessary to institute a public inquiry of our own motion. Certain general aspects of importance to local government to which reference was made in our report for 1949 have been reiterated in this report, in view of their regular recurrence in inquiries we have undertaken. XI. PROCEDURE In making the following observations in regard to the general procedure of the Local Government Commission, we consider it pertinent to refer to the functions of the Commission, which are to review from time to time the functions and districts of local authorities and to inquire into proposals and prepare schemes for the reorganization thereof, and generally to review and report to the Minister on such matters relating to local government as may be determined by the Commission or referred to it by the Minister of Internal Affairs. Following a request from the Minister or from any local authority, or on its own motion, the Commission may decide to hold a public inquiry to determine whether a reorganization scheme should be prepared in respect of the district or districts of any local authority, and the matters which should be provided for in such a scheme. In the event of a request being made under any enactment other than the Local Government Commission Act, 1946, to the Governor-General or to any local authority or other person, whether by petition or in such manner as may be prescribed or permissible, asking for any action to be taken for the purpose of or with a view to giving effect to any proposals which can be provided for in a scheme under the Local Government Commission Act, it is necessary for such a request to be referred to the Commission, and no action can be taken under the particular enactment unless the Commission so recommends.
H—2B
4
In all cases where the proposal is submitted by a local authority, or a formal inquiry is made prior to the submission of a proposal to the Commission, the local authority or authorities whose districts are, or may be, affected by any decision the Commission may make are apprised of the proposal, either by the Commission or, at the request of the Commission, by the initiating local authority. This results in a much clearer understanding of the proposal by all interested local authorities before the Commission formally considers the request, and assists to a large extent in attaining a spirit of co-operation in the reorganization of local government. Preliminary investigations are undertaken by the Commission, in conjunction with the local authorities' representatives, concerning particular proposals which are submitted. These investigations are conducted, as far as possible, in an informal manner, and the issues are clarified for the Commission and the local authorities concerned. They also assist in determining the desirability or otherwise of a public inquiry. This procedure, however, is not, in our opinion, suitable in the case of major inquiries, where a considerable number of interests, apart from those of local authorities, are involved. Our procedure is constantly under review with a view to its improvement, and the establishment of more effective relationships with interested parties in the best interests of local government. From time to time, representations have been made to us to investigate matters which are solely domestic so far as one or more local authorities in a particular district are concerned. The functions of the Commission are specific, and in these cases the matter has been referred back to the local authority or authorities with a suggestion that they refer it to the Minister of Internal Affairs for consideration as to whether the Commission should be requested to review the matter and report to him thereon. This is an indication that local authorities desiring assistance with certain of their problems have confidence in the Commission, and although the matters are not directly within our jurisdiction, in those matters which have been referred to it by the Minister the Commission has been able to assist in solving the problems involved. Where proposals for reorganization are made to the Commission by a local authority, the Commission requires the request to be in the form of a certified sealed copy of the local authority's resolution. Where the request is for an alteration of boundaries, a locality plan is required showing the areas which are the subject of the proposals and the relationship of these areas to the existing boundaries. When a proposal is submitted to the Commission under the Local Government Commission Act, 1946, or under any other enactment, the Commission, through its officers, undertakes preliminary factual investigations, and before deciding to take any action in respect of the proposal the Commission satisfies itself i hat a 'prima facie case exists for some change in the existing structure, and that the change will result in effective reorganization which will be for the betterment of the people in the particular area. Many of the decisions of the Commission are made without the necessity of holding public inquiries, but before issuing a provisional scheme the Commission satisfies itself that the proposals are soundly based, are generally supported by the local authorities affected, and that the people in the area have not only been made aware of the proposals as fully as is reasonably possible, but are generally in agreement therewith. There is, of course, a further safeguard, in that, on the issue of a provisional scheme, any interested party, whether it be a local authority, Government Department, organization or an individual ratepayer or elector, has the right, within one month of the promulgation of the scheme, to object thereto, and to submit the grounds of objection to the Commission before a final scheme is promulgated. Every effort is made, by direct
5
H—2B
notification in many instances, and by public notice in the press, to advise interested parties of the provisional and final decisions of the Commission. Where objections are lodged, they are given the fullest consideration by the Commission, and in some instances a further public inquiry has been held to consider the objections before a final decision has been reached. The procedure at public inquiries closely follows that adopted by similar types of tribunals. Evidence is taken upon oath, and the parties may be represented by counsel or in such other manner as they may desire. No request is made by the Commission for counsel to be engaged by any party to an inquiry, as it is recognized that this question, involving as it does financial responsibility, is one for determination by the party concerned. It has, however, been generally recognized, more particularly by local authorities, that the employment of counsel has resulted in co-ordination of the various cases presented and a shortening of the evidence, thereby saving both time and expense. In determining its procedure the Commission has had regard to the fact that no material evidence should be excluded, and every opportunity should be given to all interested parties to fairly state their cases. Although, as far as possible, the ordinary rules concerning evidence and procedure are followed, strict adherence thereto is not insisted upon, in case it may have the effect of excluding information which may assist the Commission in arriving at a proper decision. At the conclusion of each inquiry the Commission reserves its decision, to enable it to carefully sift the evidence which has been submitted to it. Following consideration of the evidence by the members of the Commission, the matter is thoroughly discussed and a decision arrived at as to whether a reorganization scheme pursuant to section 13 of the Local Government Commission Act is necessary. A report is then prepared by the Commission setting forth the reasons for the decision arrived at, and this report, together with a provisional scheme if it has been decided to promulgate one, is forwarded to all the principal parties represented at the inquiry, as well as to the Ministers of the Crown, members of the House of Representatives in whose electoiates the local authorities' districts the subject of the inquiry are situated, members of the Legislative Council resident in the areas affected, Government Departments concerned, and the press. The wide interest which has been shown by the public in the activities of the Commission has been assisted in no small measure by the publicity which has been given by the press to the Commission's reports and schemes, and this is undoubtedly stimulating renewed interest in local government. In addition, the National Journal, which publishes all matters of interest to local authorities throughout the country, gives full publicity to the reports and decisions of the Commission. Public notice is given of all provisional schemes, and any interested party may examine the reports and schemes, which are available for public inspection at convenient places. The Commission's final schemes are similarly dealt with. Before making a decision as to whether a public inquiry should be held, it has been the practice of the Commission to undertake, through its officers, a complete historical survey of local government in the locality concerned, and to obtain from the local authorities which may be affected by any decision of the Commission all available factual information relating to the proposal and to their districts generally. Maps and aerial photographs of the locality, when available, are examined, and when a public inquiry is decided upon a physical inspection of the area is undertaken by the Commission in order that the members may have a thorough appreciation of the proposals which are to be submitted to it. Whenever it has been decided to hold a public inquiry, the Commission has first been satisfied, as the result of its preliminary investigations, that it has been necessary in the interests of local government in the areas concerned. It can thus be seen that the Commission's procedure affords ample opportunity for every phase of a particular proposal to be thoroughly examined and considered.
H—2B
6
The procedure may generally be summarized as follows : (1) A full investigation by the Commission's staff as to the necessity for the change proposed. Only if these investigations establish a prima, facie case does the Commission proceed to the next stage. (2) A provisional scheme is promulgated without the necessity of a public inquiry where the Commission is satisfied, after a full investigation, that the decision is in the proper interests of local government and is, in general, supported by the local authorities and the electors and/or ratepayers. (3) Public notification is given to all parties interested generally, while individual notification is given to those specifically interested, at leas'"; one month before a public inquiry is held. This notification sets out in detail the proposals which the Commission has decided to consider, and also gives an indication that all persons, local authorities, Government Departments, or other organizations may, if they so desire, submit evidence at the inquiry. The inquiry is open to all members of the public and the press, and all parties have the right to submit evidence and cross-examine witnesses of other parties. (4) The written submissions presented to the Commission are distributed at the inquiry, and a copy of the verbatim evidence is given to all principal parties either at or immediately following the conclusion of the inquiry. (5) A report setting out the Commission's reasons for its decisions is issued to all principal parties engaged in the inquiry, the National Associations of Local Authorities, Government Departments, Ministers of the Crown, members of both Houses of Parliament who are directly interested, and the press, while the decision of the Commission is embodied in a provisional scheme, (6) There is a statutory period of one month from the date of promulgation of the provisional scheme in which any interested party has the right to object to the provisional scheme. The time for objection may be extended by the Commission, and this has been done in a number of instances. (7) Any objections are given full and careful consideration by the Commission, and where it is considered necessary, in order to clarify the issues which have been raised in the objections or to give the objectors the opportunity of presenting further evidence in support of their objections, a further public inquiry is held. (8) A final scheme is promulgated, and is notified to all parties in the same manner as the provisional scheme, and is forwarded to the Minister of Internal Affairs for implementation when assented to by His Excellency the GovernorGeneral by Order in Council. 111. POLLS Provision is made in the Local Government Commission Act, 1946, for a poll of electors to be taken following the promulgation of a final scheme by the Commission providing for the union, merger, or abolition of the district of any local governing authority. A poll may be recommended by the Commission in its final scheme, but if no such recommendation is made, upon a request in writing that such a poll be taken, signed by not less than 20 per cent, of the electors of the district, being delivered to the Returning Officer within one month after the date of the final approval of the scheme by the Commission a poll must be taken. The poll must be held not later than three months after the date on which the Commission promulgates its final scheme. The provision for a poll applies only where the district of a local governing authority—i.e., a County Council, Borough Council, Town or Road Board —is united, merged, or abolished. A final scheme promulgated by the Local Government Commission cannot be implemented in cases where a poll is held unless a majority of the valid votes recorded on that poll is in favour of the Commission's decision.
7
H—2B
Three cases have occurred where the Commission has merged the districts of local governing authorities in adjoining local authorities' districts. In one instance —that of Tahunanui Town District —no recommendation for a poll was made by the Commission and no request for a poll was received by the Returning Officer from the electors in the district. Effect has since been given to the decision of the Commission merging the Tahunanui Town District in the City of Nelson. In the second case —that of the Town District of Kamo —following an exhaustive inquiry, the Commission came to the conclusion that it was in the best interests of the residents of Kamo for the town district to be merged in the Borough of Whangarei. No recommendation for a poll was made by the Commission. Following the issue of the final scheme, however, advice was received from the Returning Officer that a request for a poll, signed by the requisite number of electors, had been received. At the poll, only 49 per cent, of the total number of electors —433— exercised their votes. Thirty-one per cent, voted against the proposed merger of the town district in the Borough of Whangarei, and 18 per cent, for it. Effect, therefore, could not be given to the final scheme of the Commission. The third case in which a poll was requested and held was in respect of the Borough of Riccarton, following the promulgation by the Commission of a final scheme providing for the abolition of the district and the inclusion of the area in the City of Christchurch. The poll, which was conducted by the Town Clerk as Returning Officer for Riccarton Borough Council, resulted in only approximately 44 per cent, of the ratepayers casting their votes, 24 per cent, voting against the proposal for the inclusion of the borough in the city, and 20 per cent, for it. Although there is much to be said for electors having the right to determine matters relating to local government, we are of the opinion that unless there is some method by which the reasons for the Commission's decisions, which are always incorporated in a report accompanying the decisions, can be brought impartially and fully to the notice of the electors concerned, the Commission's decisions, which are made in an honest attempt to reorganize local government in the Dominion, will tend to be negatived. We further consider that unless a much larger percentage of the electors exercise the privilege of casting their votes on such an important issue than has been the case in either of the two polls to which reference has been made, the result of the poll is not truly indicative of local opinion on the question of the need for reorganization or otherwise. It is not our prerogative to comment on the legislation under which we are empowered to exercise certain functions, but we feel that this particular matter is one which merits serious consideration by the legislators, as well as by local governing authorities, other interested organizations, and the people generally. IY. CHANGE OF STATUS The Commission has held inquiries from time to time concerning the change of status of town districts from dependent to independent status or to that of a borough, and in each case has decided either that the status quo be maintained or that the question be reviewed at some future date. Other than certain provisions relating to area, population, representation, and matters of lesser significance, the legislation relating to independent town districts does not differ very materially from that pertaining to boroughs. While the Commission has refused a change of status in these cases, it has not lost sight of the applications and they will be the subject of further consideration in the light of our general review of urban local government. Several other petitions praying for a change of status have been referred to the Commission and are under consideration. In all the cases investigated, the local authorities concerned have been requested to indicate the disadvantages which result from their present status.
H—2B
8
In one case it was stated that difficulties have been experienced owing to the small number of representatives who have been available to carry out the local authority's administration, and if borough status were granted, a larger number would be available to carry out the work. It was apparent to us, however, that the difficulties of this particular authority were accentuated by the fact that no technical officer was employed, and the members themselves had to give a good deal of their time to technical matters, even though they were not fully qualified to undertake same. We are aware that a number of boroughs which have been constituted from time to time are smaller, in so far as population is concerned, and have fewer amenities than some of the larger independent town districts. A number of urban areas in counties, however, have larger populations than some boroughs and town districts and are supplied with more amenities. Until such time, therefore, as we have been able to make an over-all factual survey of urban local government, we have decided to defer decisions in regard to changes of status unless evidence is available to satisfy us that there are major difficulties being experienced by the local authority concerned which can be overcome only by a change of status. The general review which is being undertaken in regard to urban local government will enable us to formulate principles which we hope will result in more progressive and stronger types of urban local authorities than some of those which at present exist. In general, we are of the opinion that if local government is to measure up to its full responsibilities and to carry out effectively the functions it is empowered to undertake it must be sufficiently strong in revenue potential, population, rateable value, and area to provide the modern amenities and services demanded and economic and efficient administration. In so far as the question of status is concerned, we believe that the existing measuring rod of population qualification is outdated, and it is evident that consideration must be given to this aspect in the near future. V. PROGRESS OF GENERAL REVIEW In our last annual report reference was made to an over-all general review of territorial local government which was being undertaken. Progress has been made in this connection, but owing to the limited staff which we have had at our disposal, and the staff changes which have taken place during the year under review, it has not been possible to complete this work. However, one branch —counties—has been completed in order that our decisions relating to counties could be reviewed in the light of the existing county structure throughout the country. It has not been possible to obtain information later than the year ended 31st March, 1948, owing to the lack of published statistical information and, in a number of instances, up-to-date audited accounts. The figures and facts which we have had at our disposal, however, give a general picture of the county structure existing at that date. A considerable amount of data has been tabulated and segregated, and brief reference is made to some of the more general aspects which indicate the disparity existing between operative counties throughout New Zealand, which, excluding the Chatham Islands, total 124. (1) Area. —The areas of counties in New Zealand vary between 20 square miles and 3;872 square miles. The overall position is revealed in a general way in the following table :—• Area, in Square Miles. Number of Counties. Under 100 .. .. .. ..8 100-500 .. .. .. -. 56 501-1,000 .. .. .. ..33 1,001-2,000 .. .. .. .. 18 Over 2,000 .. .. .. .. 9
9
H—2B
(2) Capital Rateable Value.—The capital rateable value of counties varies between £89,465 and £13,750,198, and the position generally is shown in the following table : Rateable Value. Number of Counties. Up to £1,000,000 .. .. .. ..30 £1,000,001-£2,000,000 .. .. ..29 £2,000,001-£3,000,000 .. .. .. 26 £3,000,001-£5,000,000 .. .. .. 23 £5,000,001-£10,000,000 .. .. .. 14 Over £10,000,000 .. .. .. ..2 Thus it can be seen that 108 of the 124 counties have a rateable capital value of under £5,000,000. (3) Plant. —The value of plant operated by counties in New Zealand varies from £6O in one case to £43,778 in another; the average value of plant over the whole of the counties is £8,398. (4) Population—The statistical figures available to us as at Ist April, 1949, indicate that the population in thirty-four of the existing counties has shown a steady decline since the dates of their respective constitution. It is noteworthy that in the case of the seventeen North Canterbury counties which have recently been reviewed by us, eight of them are included in this figure of thirty-four. The following table generally indicates the over-all position : Population. Number of Counties. Up to 5,000 .. .. .. .. 76 5,001-10,000 .. .. .. .. 30 Over 10,000 .. .. .. ..18 Although statistics of this nature are of assistance in a review of this nature, we consider that they can be regarded only as a general guide in approaching the problem of reorganization of local government. Local conditions, such as the topography of the country, its degree of settlement, community of interest, the nature of the farming operations carried on and general land usage, access within the district, density of population, its rateable potential, and many other factors of a local character influence the desirability of reorganization. It is only a full understanding of these local conditions, and, above all, an appreciation, as far as it is reasonably possible to obtain, of the constructive views concerning local government of the people in the local authorities' districts, which will enable us to solve the problem of reorganization. We are satisfied, however, that if rural local government, and likewise other forms of local government, are to continue to function satisfactorily, a local body must have sufficient revenue potential to undertake the progressive steps necessary to carry out its functions adequately. The employment of adequate administrative and technical staff and the provision of sufficient plant and materials are vitally necessary. Considerable progress has been made in accessibility to rural districts in particular, and in the means of communications of all types. This has virtually shortened distances, and enabled a much wider coverage to be undertaken administratively. It has also resulted in more effective and wider representation. Great advances, administrative, technical, and scientific, have been made since many of the local authorities in New Zealand were constituted, and as we progress in the discharge of our functions the need for reform becomes more and more evident.
H—2B
10
VI. ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES: INVOLVING PUBLIC INQUIRIES General In our last report, attention was drawn to two general matters which caused us concern. These two matters have continued to obtrude themselves at public inquiries held relating to the alteration of boundaries of local authorities' districts. First, reference was made to the question of the implementation of the provisions of the Town-planning Act, 1926. The pressing need for such control by local governing authorities as provided for in this enactment cannot again be too strongly stressed. The need for town and extra-urban planning, more particularly where the districts of local authorities have been reorganized with a view to stabilization of their boundaries, is apparent, and the success of the reorganization depends to a large degree on the implementation of the provisions of the Town-planning Act. The uneconomic utilization of productive land where scattered urbanization has been taking place results in amenities such as water, sewerage, transport, streets, and footpaths being costly to provide and to maintain. We realize, of course, that many years must elapse before the mistakes of the past can be rectified, but we are of the opinion that these mistakes can be avoided in the future if a proper regard is had to the principles of sound planning. Costly services and amenities can be provided for urban areas more economically if the areas are reasonably and logically confined than if spill-overs and ribbon development are permitted. In the interests of both the rural and urban communities, as well as in those of the nation generally, the use of highly productive land for the production of primary produce should, as far as possible, be continued. It is evident that this function of local governing authorities is becoming more clearly recognized, and in some cases is being exercised, but we consider it should be exercised more widely. The second general matter to which reference was made in our previous report was the question of the supply of electricity by the two types of supply authorities — territorial authorities and Power Boards. Anomalies occur in respect of the districts of supply authorities, and although the Commission has power to adjust the boundaries of power districts, it is precluded by section 13 (3) of the Local Government Commission Act from making any provision for the transfer of the whole or any part of any trading undertaking, or of the functions in relation thereto, from any local governing authority except upon the union, merger, or abolition of the district of the local governing authority. The disparity in the rates charged by different supply authorities accentuates the difficulties, more particularly when the district of a territorial authority is adjusted so as to include a portion of an adjoining local governing authority's district which forms portion of the district of a Power Board, or, conversely, where a portion of the area of a territorial supply authority is excluded from its district and included in the district of an adjoining local governing authority which is supplied with electricity by a Power Board. There arises not only the question of supply and the financial implications in so far as the individual consumers are concerned, but also certain electoral problems. As in the case of the adjustment of territorial districts, we are of the opinion that unless there is sound justification for any reorganization, the status quo should be maintained, and this principle would apply in respect of the distribution of electricity if the Commission was given power to adjust the boundaries of local governing authorities' areas of supply in the same way as it can adjust the boundaries of Power Boards' districts. The general effect, however, would be to overcome serious anomalies which are becoming more and more evident. (1) Christchurch Metropolitan Local Government The inquiry relating to Christchurch metropolitan local government was conducted during the year 1948 and reference was made in our previous report to the issues involved. We do not consider it necessary, therefore, to make further detailed reference to these matters.
11
H—2B
On the 18th May, 1949, the Commission issued its report, which dealt with, as far as was possible, every aspect of local government in the Christchurch metropolitan area, based on the evidence presented at the inquiry and the Commission's own investigations. Ten provisional schemes providing for the reorganization of the local government of the area were promulgated on the same date, and these provided for the following : (1) Abolition of Borough of Riccarton and the inclusion of the area comprising that district in the City of Christchurch. (2) Exclusion of areas from the County of Heathcote and the inclusion of those areas in the City of Christchurch. (3) Exclusion of areas from the County of Halswell and the inclusion of those areas in the City of Christchurch. {4) Exclusion of areas from the County of Paparua and the inclusion of those areas in the City of Christchurch. (5) Exclusion of areas from the County of Waimairi and the inclusion of those areas in the City of Christchurch. {6) Inclusion in the City of Christchurch of the area comprising portion of the estuary of the Heathcote and Avon Rivers. (7) Exclusion from the City of Christchurch of a rural area which formed part of the former Borough of Sumner and the inclusion of that area in the County of Heathcote. ,(8) Abolition of the Christchurch Drainage District and the transfer of the Christchurch Drainage Board's functions to the Christchurch City Council. .(9) Abolition of the Christchurch Tramway District and the transfer of the Christchurch Tramway Board's functions to the Christchurch City Council. ,(10) (a) Redefinition of the boundaries of the City of Christchurch. (b) Constitution of local district committees. (c) Statutory provision for a poll of ratepayers of the reorganized City of Christchurch on the question of the adoption or rejection of the unimproved-value rating system. Eight petitions which had been referred to the Commission, either before or during the inquiry, were the subject of representations to us during the course of the inquiry. Of these, six involved the question of the exclusion of certain areas from the Counties of Waimairi and Heathcote and their inclusion in the City of Christchurch, and the others concerned an extension of the boundaries of the Christchurch Drainage District. In each case effect was given to the prayer of the petitioners in our provisional and final schemes. A further matter considered by us during the inquiry was the question of the •desirability of the merger of the Borough of Lyttelton in the City of Christchurch. Evidence on the question was heard, and the Commission decided that, for the time being, there was no justification for such merger. A report was issued setting forth the grounds for the Commission's decision. The Commission also heard evidence on the question of a proposed extension of the boundaries of the Borough of Lyttelton, and this matter is referred to later in this report. Following the promulgation of the provisional schemes, several objections were lodged, and these were thoroughly investigated by the Commission. The views of the Christchurch City Council were expressed in the form of a resolution to the effect that the Council offered no objection to the provisional schemes as promulgated by the Commission, but expressed the opinion that, in the interests of the ■city and county ratepayers, it was considered that minor adjustments to the boundaries as proposed be made. We were satisfied that in so far as a number of the suggested
H—2B
12
adjustments were concerned there was merit in the observations which were made by the City Council, more particularly where the fixing of responsibility as between the City Council and the adjoining local authorities for highways and roads were concerned, and effect was given to a number of these minor adjustments in the final schemes. In respect of objections by individuals or organizations against their inclusion in or exclusion from the city, it was decided to make a further inspection of the areas. Before doing so, however, the local authorities and all ratepayers in the areas concerned were notified of the nature of the objections and asked for their views. The further inspection was subsequently made, and the final schemes promulgated provided for the inclusion in the city of an additional 248 acres, and the exclusion therefrom of a further 81 acres. The areas finally included in the city, including the estuary, which comprises some 1,300 acres, totalled 15,571 acres. Two matters of major significance which were confirmed in one of the final schemes were, first, that statutory provision be made providing for a poll of the ratepayers of the reorganized City of Christchurch to be undertaken on the question of the adoption or rejection of the unimproved-value system of rating throughout the area, and secondly, that, with a view to preserving local interest and reconciling the conflict between democratic principles and technical efficiency, local districts with elected district committees be constituted throughout the metropolitan area. The matter of a poll on the question of the adoption or rejection of the unimprovedvalue rating system arose as a result of a recommendation by the Local Bills Committee in 1947 to refer the petition presented to the House to the Local Government Commission for its consideration and recommendation. After hearing evidence on the matter, we were of the opinion that it would be in the interests of the ratepayers of the reorganized City of Christchurch if such a poll were taken, especially as many of the added areas were rated on a different system from that of the City of Christchurch. In recommending the constitution of local district committees throughout the metropolitan area, it was felt that if general legislative effect was given to our recommendation, local interest in larger urban districts with local responsibilities would not only be preserved, but stimulated, the spirit of community service would be built up, and the democratic ideals of local government would be enhanced. In general, the provisional decisions of the Commission were, with minor adjustments of boundaries, reaffirmed in the final schemes promulgated on 21st September, 1949, and on their implementation will, we believe, be in the best interests of the citizens of Greater Christchurch. In the Commission's report on the Christchurch metropolitan inquiry, reference was made to the effect of our findings on the four counties surrounding Christchurch. We were of the opinion that, although it would be possible for these counties to continue to operate, it was imperative that we should consider the position at an early date to ascertain whether, in terms of general efficiency, some reorganization of the county structure in the North Canterbury region was necessary and desirable. An indication, by way of general comment, was given in the report to the effect that as soon as possible after the issue of the final schemes for metropolitan local government an inquiry would be instituted into the government of the rural areas surrounding Christchurch. Further, in order that there should be as little disorganization as possible in the government of the counties surrounding Christchurch, we recommended that our decisions relating to metropolitan local Government should not be implemented until decisions on the future government of the county areas were made. In making this recommendation we had in mind that any changes which might be made in the county structure should be made contemporaneously with the changes in the structure of the Christchurch metropolitan area. In keeping with this undertaking, an inquiry was commenced into
13
H—2B
the reorganization of rural local government on the 27th September, 1949, and concluded on the 3rd October, 1949. The inquiry involved the functions and districts of the seventeen counties in the North Canterbury region, two Town Boards, and a Water Supply Board. Reference is made later in this report to this particular inquiry and to our provisional findings thereon. Electricity Consideration was given by the Commission to the question of the supply of electricity to those areas of the Springs-Ellesmere Electric-power District which were included territorially in the city —namely, the Sockburn and Hornby areas. Although it appeared logical from the point of uniformity for the Christchurch City Council to supply these areas, consideration had to be given to the question of the effect on the Springs-Ellesmere Electric-power Board financially if these areas were excluded from its district. Evidence was presented to us that these areas, which are largely of an industrial and residential character, comprised one-third of the Board's load, and were of an entirely different character from the remainder of the district, which was, generally, of a rural nature. The load in the Sockbufn-Hornby area was a balancing factor which was most important from the point of view of the operations of the Springs-Ellesmere Electric-power Board as a whole. There was no doubt that if these areas were transferred to the city for electricity purposes the charges in the remainder of the Board's district would of necessity have to be increased considerably, and the Board would find itself in the same unsatisfactory position as the adjoining Boards of Banks Peninsula and Malvern. Doubtless, once this area is included in the city territorially, there will be a demand for electricity to be supplied by the Christchurch City Council, but we concluded that, notwithstanding the fact that the boundaries of the city were extended to include the Sockburn-Hornby areas, the responsibility for the supply of electricity should remain with the SpringsEllesmere Electric-power Board. The question of electricity supply generally in this particular area is a vexed one. We found that the Christchurch City Council is supplying electricity to the major portion of the Waimairi County, the Avonside and Bromley Ridings of the Heathcote County, and part of the Hillsborough Riding of that county. The City Council also supplies a major portion of the Halswell County. The Heathcote County Council is the supply authority in two of its ridings—Heathcote Valley and Cashmere —while the Riccarton Borough supplies its own district. The supply of electricity by the City Council beyond its territorial area results in the disfranchisement of consumers of electricity in those areas. On the other hand, if effect is given to our decision to include a residential portion of Cashmere Riding in the City of Christchurch, the electricity supply in this area will remain with the Heathcote County Council. Illogical as this may seem, particularly in view of the resultant disfranchisement of the consumers in this area, we are precluded by section 13 (3) of the Local Government Commission Act from transferring the electricity supply in this area to the City of Christchurch. If the Borough of Riccarton had been merged in the city, the supply of electricity would automatically have been transferred to the City Council. The effect of its remaining with the Riccarton Borough Council is that it will be an island area of supply, as it has been since the supply of electricity in the Waimairi County was transferred to the City Council some years ago. Although the electricity supply in Riccarton is being economically administered, we are of the opinion that advantages and further economies would accrue to the metropolitan area generally, and the whole area could be better planned from the technical point of view, if the Christchurch City administered the whole supply. In fact, we are of the opinion that it would be more economic and efficient if the whole of the Christchurch metropolitan area was under the control of one authority for electricity purposes. As we have no jurisdiction in respect of the transfer of the
H—2B
14
trading undertaking of any local governing authority, we do not express any opinion at this stage on the question whether the electricity supply in the Christchurch metropolitan area should be under the control of the City Council or a Power Board. While dealing with the question of electricity supply we desire to refer briefly to the unsatisfactory state of the finances of the Banks Peninsula and Malvern Electricpower Boards, which adjoin the Springs-Ellesmere District, and are at no great distance from the Christchurch City from the point of view of the supply of electricity. A preliminary investigation into all factual aspects relating to these two Boards and the Springs-Ellesmere Board was undertaken by the Commission's Investigating Officer prior to the opening of the Christchurch metropolitan inquiry. While the SpringsEllesmere Electric-power Board is financially sound at the present time, it could become unfinancial if even minor adjustments of its boundaries were ever made. Both the Banks Peninsula and Malvern Boards have in past years made a rate levy to meet their deficiencies, and at the time the inquiry was undertaken the Malvern Board was continuing a rate levy for that purpose. We are of the opinion that an amalgamation of these two districts with the Springs-Ellesmere District will not solve their difficulties, as it appears from an examination of the character of their loads that amalgamation of the two unfinancial Boards with the Springs-Ellesmere, which is financially sound at present, may result in the creation of a large unfinancial Board. We consider that the Christchurch City Council has a responsibility in relation to the rural areas, and without entering into details at this juncture, as we did not have sufficient evidence at the inquiry to warrant a definite conclusion, there appears to be little doubt that the only solution of the problem of electricity supply between the Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers is the administration of the whole area by one authority. In view of our lack of jurisdiction over the trading undertakings of local governing authorities, we do not express any opinion at this juncture as to whether the authority should be a Power Board or the Christchurch City Council. The question is referred to at this stage without attempting a solution, in order to bring to public notice a problem which will have to be solved in the very near future. Suffice it to say that the examination of the electricity supply position in the Dominion which we have been able to make so far indicates that there is a strong case for the undertaking of a thorough review of electric supply districts throughout the Dominion. A wide variation in charges, due, among other things, to the character of the load and the distribution to consumers, suggests that, possibly by a regrouping of the districts so as to provide in each authority's area a balanced load comprising both urban and rural, the charges throughout New Zealand could be made more uniform. The rural, and particularly the back-country, consumer is entitled to support from the urban consumer, although to some degree that support is already given by the provision of subsidies for rural reticulation. We consider, however, that by some measure of regrouping further assistance would undoubtedly be available. (2) Lyttelton Borough : Mount Herbert County The Borough of Lyttelton comprises an area of some 2,534 acres, of which 2,184 acres are on the northern side of the harbour and 350 acres on the southern side—the Diamond Harbour Settlement. The rating in the borough is on the annual-value system, but as many of the amenities are not available in Diamond Harbour, the rateable values in that settlement are reduced by 25 per cent. Statistics in regard to the population of the borough indicate that from 1936 to 1947 the population increased by 106 persons, but since 1911 up to the last-named year there was a reduction of approximately 700. The Council made a proposal during the course of the Christchurch metropolitan inquiry that its district should be extended by including the areas on the northern side of the Harbour —Rapaki and Governor's Bay—and on the southern side of the harbour the Church Bay and Charteris Bay areas and an unformed road on the fringes of the
H—2B
15
foreshore skirting the Diamond Harbour Settlement. All these areas, the subject of the Council's proposals, form portion of the Mount Herbert County and, together with the Diamond Harbour Settlement, are supplied with electricity by the Banks Peninsula Electric-power Board. The Council also proposed that its licensed area of supply should be extended to cover the Diamond Harboui area and the other areas which it considered should be included in the borough. At the initial stages of the inquiry, however, the proposal to include the Diamond Harbour, Church Bay, and Charteris Bay areas in the Council's supply area for electricity purposes was withdrawn, and in the final stages the proposal to include the Rapaki and Governor's Bay areas was also withdrawn. While it may be admitted that, from a practical point of view, Lyttelton Borough, on its northern side, is almost wholly built up residentially, there was little evidence of any spill-over, either actual or potential. The fall in population is no doubt accounted for by the electrification of the railway between Christchurch and Lyttelton, which has made it convenient for many of the people who find their occupation in Lyttelton to live in the City of Christchurch. There was evidence to the effect that the Diamond Harbour Settlement was developing from a residential point of view, although it appeared clear that it was developing as a seaside suburb of the Christchurch metropolitan area. The Commission concluded that there was no justification for the Lyttelton Borough Council's extension proposals, which were based on the necessity for additional areas to accommodate potential residential demands. As stated previously, there was no evidence of a spill-over from the lyttelton Borough into the adjoining county areas and Rapaki in particular. In so far as Governor's Bay was concerned, there was evidence that subdivisions which had been undertaken in the past had not resulted in any residential development, and, in any case, from a general point of view, Governor's Bay cannot be regarded as a "suburb of Lyttelton. A petition was presented by the residents of Governor's Bay praying that the territory be included in Lyttelton. This petition was largely on the grounds that a highpressure water-supply system was desirable in the area, but the evidence submitted to us indicated that little attention had been paid to the ultimate cost of providing water for this remote area. It was evident that the residents of Governor's Bay could not bear this cost themselves, and as a consequence the burden would fall on the residents of Lyttelton, who would find the incidence of rates oppressive. Furthermore, there was evidence that there was no community of interest between Lyttelton and Governor's Bay, but rather that the community of interest was with Christchurch, and finally, there was no real evidence that Mount Herbert County was not providing all the services necessary for a settlement of this size. As regards the Church Bay and Charteris Bay areas, the position was little different from that of Diamond Harbour, as they are essentially seaside resorts. The ratepayers of the Church Bay and Charteris Bay areas petitioned for the areas to be excluded from the Mount Herbert County and included in the Lyttelton Borough. The main ground for the petition was that Lyttelton proposed to obtain water from the Charteris Bay area, and the main pipe-line would pass through Charteris Bay to Diamond Harbour. The residents also desired to be supplied with water from this high-pressure supplysystem. We considered that if this should eventuate the county could, without difficulty, arrange with the Borough for a high-pressure water-supply for the areas, and this desire was not sufficient justification for the exclusion of the areas from the county. Substantial areas of undeveloped land lie between Diamond Harbour and the partly built-up seaside areas of Charteris and Church Bays, and there was no evidence to indicate that the demand for residential development was sufficient to warrant the inclusion of these areas, together with the intervening areas, in the borough. In all, there was no effective evidence presented which suggested that the residents were not receiving efficient service from the Mount Herbert County.
H—2B
16
The unformed road which fringes the foreshore of Diamond Harbour Settlement was in the Mount Herbert County, and we considered that this should be incorporated in the Borough of Lyttelton. (3) Palmerston North City : Kairanga County Following the inquiry which was held on the 22nd September, 1948, into the question of the extension of the boundaries of the Palmerston North City, a provisional scheme was promulgated on the 27th January, 1949. Objections to the provisional scheme relating to the inclusion of certain properties in the city were lodged. As certain of the objectors had not had the opportunity of being heard at the public inquiry, it was decided to hold a further public inquiry to consider these particular objections. The properties of these objectors had been considered by the Housing Construction Division of the Ministry of Works as suitable for development for State housing purposes, and evidence was given at the inquiry that the Department intended to acquire this land progressively for housing. The properties were being used for farming purposes, and the objectors were strongly of the opinion that unless there was a clear undertaking given that they would be acquired for housing purposes, the properties should remain in the Kairanga County. As witnesses for the Ministry of Works stated that it was the Ministry's intention to acquire these properties, and in view of the undertaking previously given by the Palmerston North City Council that farmers would not, by reason of the incorporation of their land in the city, be placed in an unfavourable position regarding rating liability, the Commission considered that no hardship would ensure pending the lands in question being acquired by the Crown. In view of the decision to include these additional areas in the city, and the resultant availability for residential purposes of adjacent areas by reason of the provision of drainage facilities, the Commission decided to exclude the Awapuni area to the south of the city, comprising some 456 acres, which had been included in the city in the provisional scheme. (4) Papatoetoe Borough : Manukau County A proposal to extend the-boundaries of the Papatoetoe Borough arose as the result of a petition which was forwarded by thirty-two ratepayers of the Manukau County in areas adjoining the Papatoetoe Borough. The petition requested the Borough Council to take the necessary steps to have the areas in which their properties were situated included in the Borough so that such amenities as water-supply, fire protection, recreation areas, and the Town Hall, which were provided by or were situated in the borough, could be fully availed of. The petition was referred to the Commission by the Department of Internal Affairs for such action as it considered desirable. Before proceeding in the matter, the Commission undertook a general inspection of the areas, which at that time had not been defined. At a later date, submissions were made by the Borough Council defining the areas which it considered should be included in the borough, and these areas were taken as the basis on which the inquiry was subsequently conducted. The inquiry was commenced on the Ist March, 1949. It was evident to us that considerable activity in regard to subdivision and the erection of new houses was taking place in the borough, and the location of Papatoetoe in relation to Auckland and the intervening industrial areas of Penrose and Westfield indicated that the borough was developing as a dormitory suburb in relation to these localities. The frequency of transport, both road and rail, to Auckland and other parts of the metropolitan area gave further support to this view. The marked trend of development to the south of Auckland, and the difficulty at that time of securing building-sites in the metropolitan area, had, in our opinion, created an unusual demand for building-sites in the adjoining areas, and a considerable increase had taken place in Government values of property in the borough.
17
H—2B
As the inquiry proceeded, it was evident that the Manukau County Council had, as far as had been reasonably possible under the legislation under which it operated, assisted very materially in the development of the built-up areas adjoining the Borough. One witness for the County Council stated that the Counties Act was deficient in the matter of providing for full effective control of urban areas, whereas the Municipal Corporations Act gave adequate powers in this respect. So long as there is this deficiency in the Counties Act, more particularly in relation to urbanized areas adjoining urban authorities' districts, we consider that the only satisfactory form of control of such areas is by a municipal authority under the Municipal Corporations Act. Until such time as finance, in particular, for the administration of such small areas can be retained in separate accounts, and adequate powers are given to counties to enable them to administer such areas, the difficulties which are being experienced in this regard must remain. The relationship of the Manukau County to the metropolitan area of Auckland therefore raises more serious issues as to the future control of such areas, and the apprehension expressed by the Manukau County Council as to whether urban development should be encouraged is indeed justified. Clearly a County Council must experience considerable difficulty in meeting the demands of residents who are fully aware of the services and amenities provided in urban areas, and the demands for such services must inevitably tend to increase, thereby accentuating the financial difficulties resulting from a combination of rural and urban areas in a county. Although the Manukau County, which covers an area of 240 square miles, has an efficient and highly qualified and experienced staff and has modern plant available with which to undertake work which is normally necessary, and although it may possibly be able to meet the needs of concentrated populations in urban pockets in the county, there are certain inherent legal difficulties which cannot be overcome. The desire, for instance, for adequate representation, municipal standards, building control, and localized amenities such as water, sewerage, footpaths, sealed streets, and kerbing and channelling, creates difficulties regarding the provision of finance in smaller pockets forming parts of rural ridings. Another difficulty under the present set-up is to provide closer administrative contact with closely settled areas, and this •doubtless accentuates the desire for local control. We formed the opinion, however, that in a wider sense, and under the existing conditions, the county was doing all that could reasonably be expected of it to meet the problem in its compact partly urbanized areas, but it was evident that its efforts were insufficient when compared with the facilities which could be provided by an urban ■authority. Evidence was submitted at the inquiry by the Auckland Metropolitan Town-planning Organization, and although this was of a general nature and referred more to potential urban development in relation to the borough and adjoining areas than to those particular areas which we considered were suitable for inclusion in the borough, it again brought to our notice the need for planning control, both town and extra-urban, to prevent what appeared to us to have developed in this area, an " over-sprawl " from the Papatoetoe Borough. The continued subdivision for residential purposes of small farms in county areas ■adjacent to urban areas is, in our opinion, undesirable, particularly when, as in this case, areas within a borough are not being subdivided. The ultimate cost of providing services and amenities to a widely scattered area creates an undue burden in future years. The national necessity of retaining rural areas which are suitable for the production of primary produce for large metropolitan populations, particularly where these areas are within easy reach of such urban agglomerations, cannot be stressed too strongly.
H—2B
18
The County Council indicated that steps had already been taken to implement control but the stage had not been reached where an over-all extra-urban plan could be implemented. It is understood that further steps have since been taken by the Manukau County Council to gazette a substantial portion of the county as an extra-urban planning area, and this will provide a measure of control. One matter, however, which was having a retarding effect in the development of the district was the lack of adequate sewerage and drainage facilities. The problem of providing adequate drainage and a sewerage system had, it was stated, been exercising the minds of the Borough Council for some time, in view of the fact that the existing facilities were not only out-dated, but were unsatisfactory. The general ground conditions in certain areas in and adjacent to the borough rendered it difficult to maintain complete disposal of water waste and septic-tank fluid, and as a result certain of the open stormwater drains in the borough were being contaminated. The need for the planning and progressive installation of a sewerage system of sufficient capacity to meet the demands of the borough, together with any areas which were included therein, was therefore, in our opinion, imperative. We considered that, notwithstanding some extra initial expense, the capacity of this system should also be designed, as far as was practicable, to meet the needs of the areas adjacent to the borough which may be zoned for residential purposes and which may, in future years, form part of the urban area of Papatoetoe. Consideration was given during the course of the inquiry to the existing water-supply system, the capacity of which, in our opinion, would provide for a population of approximately 9,500. The development by the Auckland City Council of supplies from Hunua is at present being undertaken, although it is not anticipated that this scheme will be completed before 1956. We consider that by supplementing the existing borough supplies from this system when it is developed, by agreement between the local authorities, adequate future supplies would be available. Consideration was given to the comparative rating liabilities of properties in the areas adjoining the borough with those in the borough, and it was clear that the rates on small residential holdings would be lower if these properties were included in the borough. On the other hand, the rates which would be levied on properties used for farming purposes would be considerably higher if they were included in the borough. Although legislative provision exists for amelioration of the position, in our opinion practical difficulties would arise so far as the application of the legislation by the Borough Council was concerned. Borough amenities, such as recreation facilities, were being made use of by the adjoining residents in the county. The provision of such services as refuse-removal, improved fire protection, and water-supply at rates equivalent to those in the borough, and the fact that an administrative centre was within easy reach of these areas, would be, in our opinion, distinct advantages to the people in these areas. The question of community of interest was raised during the course of the inquiry, and it was evident to us that a distinct community of interest existed at Papatoetoe, which is reflected in the number of local organizations which provide for the social requirements of the district. Although this indicates a degree of local interest socially, we are more concerned with community of interest in so far as it affects local government, and relating, in particular, to the over-all provision in compact and closely settled areas of such requirements as town-planning associated with such matters as streets, watersupply, drainage, fire protection, recreation areas, libraries, and other facilities providable by an urban local authority. One factor which influenced our decision to reduce the area which it was desired to include in the borough was the need for compactness of an urban area when it comes to providing sealed streets, adequate footpaths, and kerbing and channelling. Only a small amount of the latter work had been undertaken in Papatoetoe, and the inclusion
19
H—2B
of substantial areas other than those in which close residential settlement had taken place would tend to embarrass the finances of the Borough Council in future years, more particularly as it already has a heavy liability in its existing area. In determining the new boundaries of the borough, regard was had to the potential needs of the borough for a period of from ten to fifteen years. An area of approximately 476 acres was excluded from the county and included in the borough, while an area of ■approximately 156 acres which was low-lying and unsuitable for residential purposes was excluded from the borough and included in the county. The area of the borough is now approximately 1,587 acres. On the estimates furnished to us, it appeared that the inclusion in the borough of the adjoining urbanized areas would increase the population from 4,160 to 6,160. The reorganized area will provide for a potential population of approximately 15,000. The provisional scheme was promulgated on the 30th September, 1949, and eight objections were lodged. The ratepayers affected by objections were requested to submit the grounds of their objections in writing, and as the result of a further inspection of the areas concerned, the Commission allowed certain of the objections and disallowed others. The final scheme was promulgated on the 27th February, 1950. (5) Tauranga Borough : Tauranga County Reference was made in our previous year's report to the inquiry which was held on the 7th October, 1948, into the proposed alteration of the boundaries of the Tauranga Borough and Tauranga County. The Commission promulgated a provisional scheme on the 25th February, 1949, and two objections were received relating to the responsibility for the maintenance of certain boundary roads. Consideration had been given to these matters at the time of the inquiry, and the objections were disallowed. The final scheme reaffirming the decisions in the provisional scheme was promulgated on the 17th May, 1949. (6) Rotorua County : Taupo County Our last annual report referred to proposals which had been made to us by the Rotorua County Council for the alteration of the boundaries of the Rotorua and Taupo Counties. An inquiry was held on the sth October, 1948, and a provisional scheme, providing for the inclusion of an area approximating 122,000 acres in the Rotorua County and its exclusion from the Taupo County, was promulgated on the Ist March, 1949. Two objections were received and considered by the Commission. It was finally decided that the adjustment should not take effect until the Ist April, 1950, in order to provide adequate time for negotiations to take place between the Ministry of Works and the Rotorua County Council in regard to certain necessary work on the roads and bridges in the particular area. The final scheme reaffirmed the adjustment of boundaries as provided for in the provisional scheme, and was promulgated on the 17th May, 1949. (7) Matamata County : Taupo County Reference was made in the Commission's previous annual report to this inquiry, which was held on the 6th October, 1948. Following the issue of a provisional scheme on the 2nd March, 1949, providing for the alteration of the boundaries of the Matamata County by the inclusion therein of 24,000 acres, an objection was lodged by the Rotorua County Council. As the Commission had previously given consideration to the matters referred to in the objection, it was disallowed, and a final scheme was promulgated on the 11th May, 1949.
H—2B
20
(8) Matamata County : Rotorua County Particulars relating to the inquiry which was held on the 6th October, 1948, into a proposal for the alteration of the boundaries of the Matamata and Rotorua Counties were referred to in our previous annual report. A provisional scheme was promulgated on the 2nd March, 1949, providing for the exclusion of an area of approximately 16,000 acres from the Rotorua County and its inclusion in the County of Matamata. An objection to the exclusion of portion of the area was lodged by the Rotorua County Council. The Commission had previously inspected the locality and was satisfied that the area concerned should be included in the Matamata County. The objection was disallowed, and a final scheme was accordingly promulgated on the 12th May, 1949. (9) Tauranga County : Rotorua County Following a request from the Rotorua and Tauranga County Councils concerning a proposal to adjust the boundaries of the two counties, the Commission held an inquiry on the 4th October, 1948, details of which were referred to in the previous annual report. A provisional scheme was promulgated on the 28th February, 1949, providing for the exclusion of an area of approximately 75,300 acres from the Rotorua County, and for its inclusion in the Tauranga County. Four objections to the provisional scheme were lodged, three of which related to an area of approximately 1,900 acres to the north of Lake Rotoma, and the other to an area on the northern boundary of the Rotorua County. Consideration was given by the Commission to these objections, and on further investigation it was apparent that the Rotoma-Matata Main Highway passing through the area to the north of Lake Rotoma could be satisfactorily serviced only from Rotorua, there being no direct access from the Tauranga County, and, further, the interests of the ratepayers in this area were more with Rotorua than with Tauranga. The Tauranga County Council and the ratepayers in the area supported the Rotorua County Council's objection, and it was accordingly decided that an area, approximating 2,000 acres, which had been excluded from the Rotorua County in the provisional scheme should be retained in the Rotorua County. The fourth objection, following investigation, was disallowed. A final scheme providing for the exclusion of an area of approximately 73,300 acres from the Rotorua County and its inclusion in the Tauranga County was promulgated on the 17th May, 1949. (10) JOHNSONVILLE TOWN DISTRICT AND CERTAIN AREAS IN THE MAKARA COUNTY On the 13th June, 1947, a request was made to the Commission by the Makara County Council that urgent consideration be given to the future local government of certain areas in the Makara County, more particularly those of Tawa Flat, Linden, Porirua, and Titahi Bay, comprising what is known generally as the Porirua Basin. In its request the county indicated that the areas had developed to such an extent that county control was inadequate ; that projected Government development in the near future added urgency to the problem of local government; that consideration should be given to the question of whether the area could be constituted a borough in view of its separation by a natural barrier ;or that, alternatively, the area should be incorporated in the City of Wellington. The County Council stated that it was unable to indicate the feeling of the residents in the area of the Porirua Basin, but expressed the opinion that any finding of the Commission would be welcomed by the Council and the local residents. The request by the Makara County Council was followed, on the 30th August, 1947, by a communication supporting the Council's view from the Combined Progressive and Ratepayers' Associations of Tawa Flat, Linden, and Titahi Bay. The Commission undertook an inspection of the areas concerned, together with the areas comprising Paremata, Plimmerton, and Pahautanui in the Hutt County, and decided, following
21
H—2B
representations from the Wellington Regional Planning Council, to include all three latter localities in the scope of the inquiry. The John son ville Town District and certain adjoining areas were also included by the Commission within the scope of the inquiry. The issues involved in the local government of these areas may be generally stated to be whether any one of these areas to which reference has been made, either together or separately, should be governed by an urban form of local government, or whether one or more of these areas, with the Town District of Johnsonville, should be included in the City of Wellington, and, in the latter event, whether any portion of the Hutt Valley Electric-power District should be excluded therefrom and included in the Wellington City's area of supply. There was no doubt as to the necessity for an urgent decision as to the future local government in certain of the areas to which reference has been made, first on account of the rapid private residential development which was taking place in some of the localities, and secondly on account of the large-scale State development works which were being undertaken in the Porirua Basin. These latter developments involved extensive State housing construction in the Porirua and Titahi Bay localities, stormwater drainage in the Porirua Township, the co-ordination of the major Hutt River water-supply scheme with the Porirua Basin, a comprehensively planned sewerage system for the area in the Porirua Basin, with adequate capacity to provide, if necessary, for the areas generally to the north of Porirua, the reclamation of portion of the Porirua Harbour at its southern extremity, and major realignment and extension of railways and highways. There were also proposals for the purchase by the Government of additional areas for educational, hospital, recreational, and industrial purposes, and also for the provision of a town centre. The Commissioner of Works had indicated that the existing form of control was unsatisfactory. The extent of the State development envisaged raised most difficult issues, and it was apparent that there was likely to be considerable diversity of opinion as to the most suitable form of local government for the Porirua Basin area. From the regional point of view there was a further problem involved relating to the availability of additional areas for recreational and industrial purposes to provide for the needs of the present and future population of the Wellington metropolitan area. Our investigations were then directed to a large extent by the nature of the interests in the various localities. For instance, in the Tawa Flat - Linden areas, substantial private development had taken place and was progressing rapidly, and it was evident to us that this would continue. In the Porirua and Titahi Bay areas the Crown had acquired considerable areas, and a good deal of the future development in these localities was dependent to a large degree on the operations of the Government. In the localities farther north—Paremata, Plimmerton, and Pahautanui—-although development was proceeding which would necessitate careful planning and localgovernment control, there was not the same urgent necessity for reorganization. In so far as the Johnson ville Town District was concerned, this had in recent years been extensively developed through the Government's State housing activities, and private residential building was also taking place both in Johnson ville and in the adjoining county areas of Hawtrey, Raroa, and portions of Paparangi and Newlands. Following preliminary investigations, an inquiry was opened on the 24th May, 1948, but an application was immediately made by the Wellington City Council, supported by the Ministry of Works, the Wellington Regional Planning Council, and certain other parties, for an adjournment. The representatives of the Combined Progressive and Ratepayers' Associations of Tawa Flat, Linden, and Titahi Bay opposed the application. The various parties who supported the adjournment desired sufficient time in which to prepare and co-ordinate certain factual data to provide the Commission with the fullest possible information. The Progressive Associations, on the other hand, desired that urgent attention should be given to the future local government of the localities in which they were particularly interested, owing to the rapid urbanization
H—2B
22
which was taking place. After considering the representations made, it was considered advisable to adjourn the inquiry sine die, but the Commission expressed the opinion that the future form of local government should be determined without undue delay. The inquiry was resumed on the 4th April, 1949. An application was made by counsel for the Hutt County Council, supported by counsel for the Hutt-Makara Branch of the Federated Farmers and the Makara County Council, for the exclusion from the scope of the inquiry of the Paremata, Plimmerton, and Pahautanui areas, mainly on the ground that consideration of the future local government in these areas was premature. It was decided to accede thereto. The areas in the Porirua Basin which the Makara County Council considered should be excluded from the county comprised approximately 4,530 acres ; the estimated population in the area, including the Porirua Mental Hospital (2,430), was 5,120 ; the estimated rateable values of the area were : capital, £1,293,960, and unimproved, £463,215. From our investigations it was evident that the major private residential development and subdivision which was taking place in the Porirua Basin was in the Tawa Flat - Linden areas. It was apparent that the Makara County Council would experience considerable difficulty in providing amenities and services in the Porirua Basin such as water-supply and sewerage systems, adequate footpaths, streets, and recreational areas. In fact, the Makara County Council considered that the levying of rates over the whole of the county to provide for the aforementioned amenities and services would be inequitable. Consideration had, however, been given by the County Council to the creation of special rating districts, but it had been the unanimous opinion of the Council that even with the application of this system of finance the administration of the rural areas could not be co-ordinated satisfactorily with that of rapidly developing urbanized areas. Evidence was submitted regarding the cost of providing amenities such as watersupply and sewerage systems, storm-water drainage, street works, and recreational facilities in the urbanized areas in the Porirua Basin. The cost of these works was estimated at approximately £2,372,000. The operating and maintenance costs following development would be in the vicinity of £50,000 per annum. Evidence was also submitted by the Railways Department in regard to the development of transport facilities, both rail and bus feeder services, in the Porirua Basin area and to the areas farther north. It was indicated that it was the Department's intention to provide multiple units which would pass through the Tawa Flat - Linden and Porirua areas, and it was envisaged that this type of service would also be extended to Onepoto, on the western side of the Porirua Harbour. The provision of modern transport will, we consider, result in the rapid acceleration of residential development in the areas to the north of Wellington, which further accentuates the need for the provision of a suitable form of urban local government in the Porirua Basin at the earliest possible date. An extra-urban planning scheme prepared by the Town Planning Section of the Ministry of Works had been undertaken, and at the time of the inquiry had received the provisional approval of the Makara County Council. This scheme provided for the planning of the Porirua Basin area, and was, in effect, similar to a town-planning scheme for an urban authority. In so far as this area was concerned, it was decided to confine our attention to the following forms of control: — (1) The inclusion of the area within the City of Wellington. (2) A form of interim control of the area in the early developmental stages, leaving the future form of local-government administration to be subsequently determined ; the three forms of interim control which were considered were — (i) By a development corporation : (ii) By a Commission of three : (iii) By a single Commissioner. (3) The setting-up of an urban local authority to govern the area.
23
H—2B
After consideration of all relevant facts, the Commission made the following recommendations, which were embodied in a report setting forth the reasons for same : (1) That the appointment be made of a Commissioner with administrative as well as engineering qualifications, and a knowledge of the requirements associated particularly with an urban unit of local government. (2) That the appointee be empowered to select, with such approval-as may be provided for by legislation, such staff as would enable him to undertake independent control during the period of major development. (3) That the legislation provide for the terms and conditions of appointment of the Commissioner, but in all other respects the appointee be given authority to exercise independently the functions to which reference was made. (4) That interim control continue until such time as the Local Government Commission determined, either of its own motion or following the presentation of a petition signed by not less than 20 per cent, of the electors in a defined area approximating 2,660 acres comprising the Titahi Bay and Porirua localities generally, or such additional defined areas as may be determined from time to time by the Commission. (5) That the costs associated with the interim control be met initially by advances from the Consolidated Fund, that such costs be apportioned generally on the basis of recoverable development expenditure in the Porirua and Titahi Bay localities, and that recovery be effected from such local governing authority as may be eventually constituted : Provided, however, that the costs associated with the planning of the Tawa Flat - Linden areas be met from time to time by the local authority which was recommended to control those localities. These recommendations, if implemented, will, we consider, enable the Porirua Basin to be planned effectively as a single unit, and development work will be closely co-ordinated with the Government, local authority, and private interests. The Tawa Flat and Linden areas, except for the provisions relating to over-all planning, were excluded from the area which we considered should be the subject of interim control, as with the exception of those works associated with highways and railways no Government development was being undertaken in these two areas. In our opinion, during the period of interim control of the Porirua and Titahi Bay areas, the Tawa Flat and Linden areas can be satisfactorily governed locally, and any negotiations which may be necessary in connection with water-supply and drainage may be entered into between the Government and the local governing authority we have recommended to control these two localities. Government agencies such as the Commissioner of Works, the Housing and Town-planning Sections of the Ministry of Works, and the Secretary to the Treasury will, we consider, be able to satisfactorily negotiate with the Commissioner we have recommended to control the Porirua and Titahi Bay localities. The question of setting up an urban local authority to govern the Porirua Basin was confined to the two areas comprising the Tawa Flat - Linden localities. Our investigations relating to the Tawa Flat - Linden areas indicated that the major portion of the present residential development is taking place in these two localities. At the time of review, 53 per cent, of the population, excluding the Porirua Mental Hospital, resided in these two localities, 52 per cent, of the dwellings in the Porirua Basin had been erected there, and subdivision into building sections comprised 54 per cent, of those in the over-all area, while building in the course of construction represented 82 per cent, of that in the whole area. The estimated rateable values were : capital, £692,785 ; unimproved, £251,175. These estimated rateable values will, in our opinion, provide sufficient general rating potential to enable Iccal services and amenities of a minor character to be provided in the immediate future, and will enable a satisfactory form of local administration to be set up. There is no doubt, however, that both these localities
H—2B
24
will be faced with the problem of providing a comprehensive water-supply and sewerage system as well as, to a lesser degree, storm-water drainage. The construction of streets, up to urban standards and the provision of recreational facilities, apart from the question of administration, will entail considerable expenditure. We are satisfied, however, that there is a strong and growing civic consciousness in the two localities, and this influenced us towards giving a locally elected body the opportunity of taking full responsibility for the immediate and future needs of the district. The co-ordination of the planning of these two localities by the Commissioner who it has been recommended should control the Porirua and Titahi Bay areas will, for an interim period, provide the new authority with valuable technical advice and assistance. Having regard to the present stage of development in the Tawa Flat and Linden areas and the development probabilities in the immediate future, we were of the opinion that the status of a borough was not warranted at the present time. The immediate amenities which the urban district will be able to provide and maintain with the rating potential which is available can, we consider, be economically provided by a local authority with the status of an independent town district. In considering our decision it was necessary for us to have regard to the effect on the Makara County Council. The exclusion of the whole of the Porirua Basin, together with certain areas adjoining the Johnsonville Town District, would have tended to seriously undermine the effectiveness of the Makara County Council as an economic unit of local government. The fact that only one-sixth of the total area in the whole of the Porirua Basin, which the Makara County Council considered should be constituted a new urban district, has been excluded from the county will, in our opinion, assist the Council in maintaining its effectiveness as a unit of local government. If the residents in the partially developed areas of Titahi Bay and Porirua desire to set up county townships to enable improvement and development of their localities to be undertaken, statutory provision is contained in the Counties Amendment Act, 1949. Such development would, subject to effect being given to our recommendations for the appointment of an independent Commissioner, be co-crdinated with the over-all development in both localities. The question of the inclusion of the Johnsonville Town District in the City of Wellington has been the subject of discussion and negotiation since 1919, but no finality was reached. The Commission decided to include the Johnsonville Town District and certain adjoining residential areas in the Makara County within the scope of the inquiry. The Johnsonville Town Board indicated at the inquiry that, while it did not oppose amalgamation with the city, it preferred the town district to be constituted a borough with or without the inclusion of certain areas of the Makara County, unless two conditions were fulfilled by the Wellington City Council —namely, that the saleyards in the town district be removed, and that the town plan which had been approved by the Town-planning Board on the 7th December, 1948, be fully implemented. We considered that the residents of Johnsonville would receive considerable benefits as a result of their inclusion in the city, including the provision of up-to-date amenities, the use of modern plant and equipment in the district, and the benefit to be derived from the services of highly skilled professional and administrative officers. The immediate effect of the inclusion of the town district in the City of Wellington would be a substantial reduction in general rates, and it appeared that, apart from the loss of local representation, there would be no hardship created by the inclusion of the district in the city. There is statutory provision for the appointment of not more than three members of the Town Board to the Wellington City Council on effect being given to the merger of the town district in the city, and this would overcome the difficulties associated with the representation of the town district until the next general local authority elections.
25
H—2B
The Wellington City Council expressed its agreement to the inclusion of Johnsonville, together with certain adjoining areas in the Makara County, in the city, and indicated that its policy would be to maintain city standards wherever constructional works were undertaken, while improvements designed to bring such services as water, sewerage, storm-water drainage, street works, recreational facilities, and a library up to city standard would be carried out over a period of years. The areas adjoining Johnsonville would similarly benefit from their inclusion in the city. These areas had in recent years developed considerably, and in our opinion it was desirable that they should be controlled and developed by an urban local authority. The Commission decided that the area to the west of the Ngahauranga Gorge State Highway should also be included in the city. This area has been partially developed for industrial purposes, and we are of the opinion that it would be more effectively controlled and services could be better provided by the City Council than by the Makara County Council. As far as possible, properties which were being used for farming purposes were excluded from the areas which we considered should be brought into the city. In areas where such farms have been included in the city, however, we recommended that the City Council should make provision for the preparation of an urban farm lands rating list to provide rating relief to the occupiers of this particular class of property. The areas adjoining the Johnsonville Town District included in the city approximated 565 acres, while the total accretion to the city, inclusive of the Johnsonville Town District, was approximately 1,407 acres. The final question which we were called upon to determine as the result of our decision to include Johnsonville and certain adjoining areas in the City of Wellington was that relating to the future control of the supply of electricity to these areas. The Hutt Valley Electric-power Board commenced supplying these localities in 1927 when they were what is commonly known as " thin " areas. Considerable development had taken place, however, and the areas had become self-supporting. The Hutt Yalley Electric-power Board is charged with the responsibility of supplying electricity where settlement has taken place over an area of some 550 square miles. On the other hand, the Wellington City Council, which has been supplying electricity for a much longer period than the Power Board, has a compact area of supply approximating 26 square miles. The supply areas of municipalities in various parts of the Dominion are not confined to their territorial districts, while Power Boards are, in several instances, the supply authorities in portions of the districts of a number of municipalities which are also supply authorities. As indicated previously, the position regarding electricity distribution generally is a most complex one, and wherever we have had to consider adjustment of the boundaries of territorial authorities who are also supply authorities, similar problems have arisen. On consideration of all the factors, we concluded, for the reasons set forth in the report accompanying the provisional schemes, that there should be no alteration of the boundaries of the power district. Two provisional schemes were promulgated on the 12th December, 1949, providing for the following : (1) That the locality comprising the Tawa Flat-Linden areas, approximating 719 acres, should be excluded from the Makara County and constituted an independent town district. (2) That the Town District of Johnsonville should be merged in the City of Wellington. (3) That upon the merger of Johnsonville in the City of Wellington, certain adjoining areas, comprising 565 acres, should be excluded from the County of Makara and included in the City of Wellington. (4) That statutory provision should be made providing for a form of control by a single Commissioner for a limited period of the Porirua and Titahi Bay areas, approximating 2,660 acres.
H—2B
26
Four objections to the provisional schemes were lodged, and after due consideration and a further inspection of the areas in the light of the objections it was decided to hold a further public inquiry on the 21st March, 1950, for the purpose of hearing evidence on the objections. The evidence concluded on the 22nd March, 1950, but the Commission's decision has not been finalized. (11) Wellington City : Hutt Valley Electric-power District Reference has previously been made to these local authorities under the heading of " Johnsonville Town District and Certain Areas in the Makara County " (pages 20-26). (12) Local Authorities in the Rural Areas of North Canterbury Reference was made in the Commission's report concerning the reorganization of Christchurch metropolitan local government to the effect of its findings on the four counties adjoining the City of Christchurch. As mentioned previously, an indication was given that as soon as possible after the issue of the final schemes providing for the reorganization of local government in the Christchurch metropolitan area an inquiry would be instituted relating to the local government in the rural areas surrounding Christchurch. The final schemes providing for reorganization- of the Christchurch metropolitan area were promulgated on the 21st September, 1949, and the inquiry into the question of the reorganization of rural local government in the North Canterbury region was commenced on the 27th September, 1949. Included within the scope of the inquiry were seventeen County Councils, two Town Districts, and a Water-supply Board—namely, Selwyn, Malvern, Paparua, Heathcote, Halswell, Springs, Ellesmere, Rangiora, Eyre, Oxford, Kowai, Ashley, Mount Herbert, Wairewa, Akaroa, Tawera, and Waimairi Counties, the Southbridge and Leeston Town Districts, and the Waimakariri-Ashley Water-supply Board. In reviewing local government in this particular region, the opportunity was taken to ascertain the historial developments which had taken place since the counties were first constituted in pursuance of the Counties Act, 1876, which made provision for the division of New Zealand into districts comprising sixty-three counties. In 1885 an amendment to the Counties Act was passed, repealing the provisions of the original Act in so far as the area and population of counties were concerned. Up to the time of the passing of this amending Act, new counties could not be less than 200,000 acres in area, and it was necessary that there should not be less than one hundred electors within the confines of the county. In passing, it is of interest to refer to the remarks of the late Sir Robert Stout, then the Hon. Robert Stout, when speaking on the amending Bill. He said : When I addressed the House in 1875,1 then pointed out that there was great danger in Parliament revolutionizing any institution, but that it ought to reform it and alter it and make it suitable to the wants of the country. When constituted originally, County Councils exercised over-all responsibility in their districts, and Road Boards undertook the construction and maintenance of internal roads and bridges in the local sense and also encouraged settlement in the county generally. The limitations of finance, the fact that counties had grown in strength, and the provision of easier access brought about by the internal development of roads by Road Boards were all factors contributing to the desire for the dissolution of Road Boards. With improved over-all access, it had become possible for County Councils and their staffs to supervise what were then relatively distant works and although Road Boards had carried out a most useful function, there was less need for their continued existence.
H—2B
27
In the intervening years, from the " eighties " until the present day, practically all road districts excepting those which are urban or semi-urban in character have been abolished. While, generally, there may be little analogy between the conditions which necessitated the elimination of Road Boards and the present form of rural local government by County Councils, the need for reform and alteration to make the existing structure suitable to the wants of the country cannot be too strongly emphasized. The improvement in access to rural areas, and the effect over the last two decades of modern transport with its virtual shortening of distances, has reorientated the problems of social and commercial life. The need for specialization in personnel, administratively and technically, the use of modern equipment, and the ability of members of local authorities to keep in close touch with their electors over much wider areas are some significant factors which, when applied to the functions exercised in many parts of the districts of local authorities established in the early 1900's, reveal the need for reorganization to meet the impact of the demands of the people arising from the changing conditions. Forty years ago a member of a County Council in many instances would have required days, by horse transport, to cover the riding he represented. To-day a County Councillor and the Council's officers can cover the district in a matter of hours. The fact that 89 of the present 125 operative counties have taken advantage of the legislation passed in 1931 which enabled counties to abolish riding accounts indicates the broadening outlook of County Councillors. The replacement of the kerosene lamp by electricity, the coach by modern bus or motor-car, and crude metalled or grass roads by modern highways, have all broadened the outlook of modern local authorities, brought new responsibilities, and accentuated the need for modern methods of dealing with them. If local government is to be geared to meet present-day needs, some of the functions which are local in character and which, in some instances, are undertaken by the central Government may be more effectively undertaken by local authorities. Some of the larger municipalities' districts have been increased in area, and the ability to undertake the impact of the demands of the people in such matters as transport, transport control, highways and streets, milk treatment, the provision of recreational facilities and libraries, town-planning, sanitation, building control, and so on has been clearly evidenced by the successful operation of such functions by large urban authorities. These local authorities, with large districts and greater revenue potential, equipped with modern plant and facilities, and employing highly skilled administrative and technical officers, have to a large extent been able to meet the present-day demands of the people. The broader issues relating to local government have been the subject of frequent discussion by legislators in New Zealand from 1895 to 1946, when statutory provision was made for the setting-up of the Local Government Commission. In the last decade particularly, views have frequently been expressed that the local-government system, comprising more than 700 local authorities, is irrational and leads to considerable overlapping. While such a view may be generally correct, the demands of efficiency and economy should not, in our opinion, outweigh, or largely tend to detract from, the democratic ideals of local government. This particular factor was the essence of the Commission's recommendation relating to the provision of local district committees in its decision relating to Christchurch metropolitan local government. The inquiry held at Christchurch was the first major inquiry concerning rural local government undertaken by the Commission, and before proceedings were commenced it made an exhaustive survey of the legislative developments from time to time. The following is a condensed summary of the position : Prior to the subdivision of the counties in New Zealand in the early part of this century, the subject of local-government reform was frequently mentioned in Parliament, and as early as 1895 a local-government Bill which contemplated complete reorganization
H—2B
28
of local government was introduced into the House. It is interesting to note that under this Bill a Commission was to be set up with definite instructions that there should not be more than 40 counties in the Dominion. The Bill was not proceeded with, however. Another local-authorities Bill was introduced in 1897, but again was not proceeded with. The next attempt to bring about local-government reform was in 1912, when a localgovernment Bill was again introduced. This Bill proposed the setting-up of a Local Government Board, and also proposed sweeping changes in local government which aimed at a system of Provincial Councils to exercise control over charitable aid, public health, education, harbours, main roads and bridges, river protection, and drainage and water-supply. The Bill also proposed the abolition of Education Boards, and the transfer of their functions to the Provincial Councils. It is worthy of note that this Bill was introduced within a year of the last County Subdivision Act —the Ashley Subdivision and the Waimakariri-Ashley Water Supply Board Act of 1911. This Bill also was not proceeded with, however. A change of Government occurred in that year, and the Bill was redrafted and submitted to a representative conference of local bodies. The Provincial Council idea had been dropped, and the Bill now proposed that there be only two forms of local government —counties in rural districts and boroughs in urban districts. The Bill also aimed at reducing the number of counties to half, but eventually it was not proceeded with, due to a further change of Government. Owing to the intervention of the first world war, the question remained dormant until the onset of the economic depression, and in 1932 the Government set up a departmental committee to collect data on the question of merging or condensing local organizations. It would appear that the idea underlying the appointment of that committee and the other reform measures referred to was to create stronger and larger counties which could absorb some of the ad hoc authorities within their structure. In 1936 the Government introduced the Local Government (Amalgamation Schemes) Bill, and after its first reading the Bill was widely circulated among local authorities. The 1936 Bill, slightly amended, was reintroduced into the House in 1937, and immediately referred to a Select Committee of the House. Evidence was taken from interested parties, and, in general, the parliamentary Committee endorsed the proposals and agreed that the problem of reorganization of local government in the Dominion was a matter of urgency. On the outbreak of war the Bill was deferred. In 1944 a Select Committee of the House of Representatives, comprising fourteen members representing both sides of the House, was appointed to inquire into and report on all phases of the local-government system in the Dominion. The report of this Committee was presented to the House in 1945. At page 154 of the report, comment was made regarding county government, and reference is made to the following section:— At the present time, therefore, in many areas there are more County Councils than are necessary for the carrying-out of the work. Here, again, there is duplication of administrative and technical staffs, as well as of administrative officers and general administrative procedure. This is particularly the case in the North Canterbury area, where there are a number of diminutive counties. As was mentioned earlier, the primary function of these Counties to-day is the maintenance of roads, somewhere about 87 per cent, of their revenue being spent thereon. There was a strong plea from the Counties Association and from a number of individual counties for greater responsibilities to be allocated to County Councils. We are wholeheartedly in accord with this proposal. The territorial local governing authorities should be the basis of local government, and their responsibilities should be enlarged, but it must be obvious that if responsibilities are to be enlarged, then the area of their jurisdiction must coincide with the area of the services which they are required to perform. It is obvious that, as at present constituted, County Councils could not carry out the work of Catchment Boards, because the catchment area normally extends over a much wider area than that of a single county.
29
H—2B
Without going into specific details, we are convinced that there is a necessity for some redrawing of county boundaries, and definitely that some of the smaller and less effective counties should be eliminated. We were informed that in some counties no qualified engineers, for instance, were employed. If local government is to be effective, it must be able to command and pay for the best technical and administrative services as are available. But if the number of counties is to be reduced then the subsidy system should be reconsidered, so that the subsidy bears some relation to the financial responsibilities of the Councils. The counties between the Rakaia and Waimakariri Rivers and immediately north of the Waimakariri River are very much smaller than most of the counties in any other part of the Dominion. Prior to 1.910 the Selwyn County comprised most of the main land area between the Rakaia and the Waimakariri Rivers, and the Ashley County most of the area immediately north of the Waimakariri River. The reasons for the division which then took place are to be found largely in the technological conditions at that time. Such machinery as was available was horse-driven, and the coverage was therefore restricted to a very small area. In so far as financial considerations caused the disintegration, union has been facilitated by section 28 of the Finance Act, 1926, which provides that where two or more counties are united, the subsidy paid to the United County was not to be less than the aggregate of the subsidies paid to the counties as separate units. The question of some reorganization of the county structure in this region has been under public discussion for many years, and, quite apart from the question of any reorganization resulting from the decisions of the Commission relating to local government of the metropolitan area of Christchurch, the Commission was, in terms of the legislation under which it was constituted, required to consider whether this state of affairs was efficient. An investigation was made into the current factual position relating to the counties in the region, in order that the Commission and all parties to the inquiry would have a full appreciation of the county structure in the area. The adoption of this procedure also resulted in a shortening of the proceedings at the inquiry, which was completed in a period of four sitting days. A summarized statement of certain factual data relating to the four groups of counties which we have considered should be united is as follows : Group 1— Group 3 Malvern. Akaroa. Paparua (West Melton Riding). Mount Herbert. Selwyn. Wairewa. Tawera. Group 4 Group 2 Ashley. Ellesmere (with the Dependent Town Eyre. District of Southbridge). Kowai. Halswell. Oxford. Heathcote. Rangiora. Paparua (less West Melton Riding). Springs. Waimairi.
Area in Square Miles. Estimated Population as at 31st March, 1949. Capital Rateable Value as at 31st March, 1948. | General Bates Levied, Year Ended 31st March, 1949. £ £ Group 1 2,196 5,590 3,883,970 15,952 Group 2 473 12,310 7,838,845 29,641 Group 3 405 2,910 3,195,870 23,372 Group 4 .. 1,056 8,740 5,075,146 20,368
H—2B
30
In some instances the values were last revised as far back as tlie years between 1935 and 1939 and must therefore be regarded as being out of date. It is our opinion that the rateable values of Groups 1 and 3 will, on revision, approximate £5,000,000. Prior to the inquiry being held, the various County Councils conducted meetings: to consider the question of submitting schemes for reorganization. These meetings were convened either by Ward 11 of the Counties Association or by certain groups, of counties. Except in the case of seven County Councils —Waimairi, Paparua, Halswell, and Heathcote on the one hand, and Selwyn, Malvern, and Tawera on the other —no agreement was reached. At the inquiry the Chairman of the Ellesmere County Council submitted on behalf of his Council, a scheme for the union of the Ellesmere, Springs, Halswell, and a portion of the Paparua County, and also expressed the opinion that Heathcote could also be administered in conjunction with t*he group. This union, however, conflicted with the scheme of union which had been agreed upon by the four counties of Halswell, Heathcote, Paparua, and Waimairi. The Chairmen of the Waimairi and Halswell County Councils expressed the opinion that their Councils would be prepared to include the Springs County in the group comprising Halswell, Heathcote, Paparua, and Waimairi Counties. The representatives of the Selwyn, Malvern, and Tawera Counties were in entire agreement as to the union of their counties, and the manner in which their submissions were presented, together with the observations which were made regarding the factual and representation aspects, indicated that very thorough consideration had been given to this proposal. The Chairman of the Malvern County Council indicated that consideration had been given to the question of the inclusion of a small portion of the Paparua County, which adjoins the Malvern County, and the three counties in this group indicated their agreement to this proposal. The counties of Akaroa, Mount Herbert, and Wairewa, situated on Banks Peninsula had not reached any agreement in regard to reorganization either inter se or with the whole or portions of other adjoining counties. We were of the opinion that the full effects of reorganization, particularly such matters as economies which might be effected, the benefits to be obtained from the employment of a qualified resident engineer, or the acquisition and combined use of suitable types of plant, had not been fully explored. The Chairman of the Mount Herbert County Council stated that, while his Council was. not altogether in favour of amalgamation, should the Commission conclude that it was desirable, it held the opinion that there should be one county for the whole of Banks Peninsula. This witness expressed the opinion that Banks Peninsula was an entity, historically, geographically, and geologically, and also from a farming point of view. It was stated further by this witness that in his county there were fewer problems than in the other counties on the Peninsula, while the rates were lower than in the other two counties. The union of the Mount Herbert County with any other district or districts would be, in the opinion of this witness, advantageous to such other districts. The five counties north of the Waimakariri River—Ashley, Eyre, Kowai, Oxford, and Rangiora— had not reached any agreement as to a scheme of reorganization, but here again it appeared to us that there had been no collective interchange of factual information, and the position had not been thoroughly explored from the point of view of the advantages which we consider would inevitably accrue from a scheme of reorganization. The Chairman of the Eyre County Council indicated that although his Council was satisfied with the status quo, if the Oxford and Rangiora County Councils were prepared to consider a scheme of reorganization, his Council was prepared to give the matter further consideration. The Councillor representing the Rangiora County Council stated that his Council preferred the retention of the status quo, but should some form of reorganization be considered necessary, his Council considered that the five counties in this portion of the North Canterbury region should be united. In putting forward
31
H—2B
this proposal, it was submitted that unless all these counties were united, the full benefits of union would not be realized. For instance, there would not be sufficient rating potential to make it practicable to employ a full-time engineer, or to purchase the equipment which would be necessary to undertake all roading work in the locality. The opinion was also expressed that the constitution of a single county to embrace the five existing counties would make for easier working of the district and would eliminate existing difficulties such as boundary roads and drains. Such a single county would also have the natural boundaries of the Waimakariri and Waipara Rivers, with the largest commercial town in the area conveniently situated as a natural administrative centre. The Chairman of the Oxford County Council expressed the view, on behalf of his Council, that it was the pivot around which the various organizations and interests in the Oxford County functioned, and therefore it was imperative that, if for this reason alone, it should retain its identity. This witness further indicated that neither his Council nor any of the other four Councils in this group had any prior collective factual background as to the over-all position. The Chairman of the Ashley County Council expressed his Council's view that the status quo should be maintained, except that, in order to obtain over-all control of a main highway, an area of some 92 square miles should be excluded from the Oxford County and included in the Ashley County. Here again it was stated that this Council had not gone deeply into the question of any scheme of reorganization, but the Chairman stated that before attending a meeting of the group in this area he had received instructions from his Council to the effect that, if the Council was not able to retain its identity, the Council preferred the union of the five counties. The Chairman of the Kowai County Council stated that his Council had given consideration to the question of amalgamation, and was unanimously of the opinion that the union of the five counties in the area should be the least of any proposals for union. It was his Council's opinion that such a grouping would result in efficiency and economy, more particularly in respect of the purchase and use of up-to-date machinery, whilst drainage problems would be confined to one authority. He also referred to the natural boundaries of such a united county, with major rivers in the north and south, the seacoast in the east, and a range of mountains in the west. Such a group would have a conveniently situated administrative centre at Rangiora, which had a community of interest with the five counties in the area, and the union of the five counties would, in the opinion of his Council, create a strong unit with adequate funds to attend to the requirements of the area. The observation was also made that if such a union were effected there would be less likelihood of assistance being sought from the Government in times of stress and emergency, and less likelihood of the district as a whole becoming subject to bureaucratic control. In reviewing the position in the North Canterbury region in relation to the county structure in the Dominion, it was found that fifteen of the counties were among a group of fifty which are smaller in area than the other seventy-nine in the Dominion. In fact, six of them are among the nine smallest in the country. The size of a county, however, is, of course, only one factor which determines the desirability of its continued existence or otherwise. The structure of local government is subject to the same influences as other organizations, whether they be public or private, and from time to time reformation •becomes essential in order that progressive development may not be retarded. The demands of the people to meet changing conditions, and the necessity of carrying out statutory functions in the interests of efficiency and economy, with improved administrative and technical skill and modern plant and equipment, are factors which undoubtedly influence a decision as to the area over which a satisfactory form of local government can operate. In many ways, local government is similar to other types of organizations, and in order to achieve the most satisfactory results constant research is necessary to balance efficiency and economy and functional operation with democratic principles.
H—2B
32
Too frequent alterations of the boundaries of local authorities will, we consider, interfere with the stability of local government generally. Subject to interim consideration of areas where rapid development may take place, we consider that a review of area is necessary, particularly in urban localities, after a period of from ten to fifteen years. This would overcome the frequent piecemeal adjustmert of boundaries between rural and urban authorities which has occurred over past years, with loss of stability in the case of rural authorities on the one hand, and the creation of considerable technical and financial difficulties in the case of urban authorities on the other. In general, the need for reorganization of the districts of rural authorities is occasioned not so much by closer settlement as by the inability of counties to cope with the growing and changing problems associated with construction and maintenance of roads and bridges and the development and improvement of rural centres. "Higher standards of administrative and technical skill and improved methods of dealing with these problems demand greater areas in which to operate efficiently. Having regard to the above-mentioned principles, we had no doubt that reorganization of the districts over which the present rural authorities in the North Canterbury region exercise jurisdiction was long overdue. As has been stated earlier, communications, more particularly in the last two decades, have improved considerably. Such improved means of communication by rail, omnibus, motor-car, and other road vehicles, and the more widespread use of the telephone, quicker mail services, and the use of radio in the field of local government, have all contributed to the virtual shortening of distances. Each in turn has resulted in democratic representation becoming more effective in enabling the needs and wishes of electors to be gauged and met. Communications with members of local authorities and their staffs in widely scattered localities can, under present-day conditions, be effected for the most part economically and efficiently and without loss of time and the wastage of man-hours. Distance which at one time could be undertaken only in terms of days or hours, can to-day be measured in minutes in many instances. The comparatively recent growth of ad hoc local authorities which undertake such functions as the supply of electricity, land drainage and river control over much larger areas than those administered by long-established territorial authorities exemplifies the efficiency of operations over a wider area and the effects of the virtual shortening of distances through modern means of communication. There are, of course, limits to efficient coverage, dependent in particular localities to a large degree on the extent of the concentrations of population. Accordingly, the tendency in such circumstances would be to reduce the efficiency of the undertaking, and also to move local government in its real sense further from the elector. Such questions can only be determined by an examination of the position in the particular locality or region. In many cases the territorial local authorities' districts which were constituted in New Zealand in the latter part of the ninteenth and early in the twentieth centuries have remained much the same in area and population. In general they are too small in a number of respects, and accordingly too costly to administer efficiently, having regard to present-day costs and standards. In rural and certain small urban districts this factor is more apparent. The cost of employing administrative and technical staff and of acquiring and maintaining modern plant and equipment cannot be justified because of uneconomic usage and because the capital outlay cannot be afforded. On the other hand, under present-day conditions the use of manual labour with a minimum of equipment in lieu of modern plant often proves costly, and in many cases does not achieve satisfactory results. The virtual shortening of distances enables man-power, plant, and equipment to be effectively used over much wider areas. The need for local authorities to discharge greater responsibilities demonstrates the need for reorganization of the districts of certain similar types of local authorities, and we consider that the creation of larger districts with greater revenue potential and wider coverage will, in general, enable the present-day problems with which these similar types of local authorities are faced to be dealt with more economically and efficiently. In our opinion,
33
H—2B
this view has particular application to the rural districts which were reviewed during this inquiry. An examination of the population statistics in the seventeen counties under consideration revealed that since the dates of their constitution the population has steadily declined in nine districts, has shown a slight increase in four, while in the case of the four counties surrounding Christchurch the population has increased considerably, due to a large extent to the extensive development which has taken place adjacent to the city boundaries. These urbanized areas were included by us in the City of Christchurch. If the views we have expressed regarding the effect of the virtual shortening of distances by present-day means of communication are correct, the democratic rights of the electors will not be prejudiced, particularly in districts with reduced populations, but in any case we consider that the grouping of certain of the districts will not materially affect these rights. On the contrary, we are strongly of the opinion that greater benefits will accrue to the areas under consideration. The question of representation in the various groups of counties we decided to unite was given due consideration. The existing representation in each of the groups, and the probable representation after union, is set out as follows: —
Upon implementation of the Commission's decision relating to the extension of the boundaries of the City of Christchurch, the existing representation on the Waimairi and Heathcote County Councils will be affected. The adjustments of boundaries as the result of the Commission's decision in regard to the reorganization of Christchurch metropolitan local government affect, to a greater or lesser degree, two ridings of the Halswell County, six ridings of the Heathcote County, three ridings of the Paparua County, and eight ridings of the Waimairi County. 2—H 28
Existing Probable Representation. Representation. Group 1— Malvern .. .. 1 Paparua (West Melton Riding) L 24 10 Selwyn .. .. .. r Tawera .. .. .. .. j Group 2— Ellesmere .. .. .. ""j Halswell .. .. ! Heathcote .. .. Paparua (excluding West Melton) .. J 52 20 Springs Waimairi Southbridge Town District Group 3— Akaroa .. .. .. .. ) Mount Herbert .. .. ► 21 9 Wairewa .. .. .. j Group 4— Ashley .. .. .. Eyre Kowai Oxford > 39 11 Rangiora Waimakariri-Ashley Water-sup-ply Board Total 136 50
H—2B
34
On effect being given to tlie final schemes promulgated by the Commission, a redefinition of these ridings would become necessary, and may be desirable in all the counties we have proposed should be grouped. A redefinition of the ridings will result in the loss of approximately four ridings in the Heathcote County, one in Paparua County, and five in Waimairi County. If the ridings in these three particular counties surrounding Christchurch are redefined to provide for the approximate number of ridings as indicated and there is no redefinition of the ridings in the other counties, the grouping we have recommended will, pursuant to section 58 of the Counties Act, 1920, result in the probable representation as shown in the previous table. It will thus be seen that this will result in a reduction of the existing representation from 136 to 50, which will effect certain economies. The average number of electors represented by each Councillor would be increased from approximately 287 to 400. If a strict interpretation is given to section 58 of the Counties Act, 1920, it appears that there are likely to be certain anomalies, particularly in respect of the counties of Malvern, Ellesmere, and Rangiora, and further consideration of this question may be necessary before a final decision is reached. It can only be determined satisfactorily, however, after implementation of the decision relating to Christchurch metropolitan local government. The operations of local governing authorities are influenced to a large degree by their financial strength. As the result of the multiplicity of local authorities, many of them operating in a small way with too small a rating potential, their operations have been seriously restricted. This is accentuated by the present-day high costs, and in many institutions these higher costs are met by reorganization, making for greater efficiency and economy. In other words, to cope with higher costs, reorganization from time to time becomes, as a natural corollary, essential. If county government is to occupy the place it should in the sphere of local government, larger and financially stronger units must of necessity be established. The equipment of counties with the ability to carry out the functions which are already their responsibility should be the immediate objective, followed, where possible, with an extension of their functions to enable them to assume some of the responsibilities at present carried out by certain other types of local authorities and the Central Government. The drift of population from rural areas which has occurred in most of the districts under review must slowly but inevitably have its effect on the strength and stability of rural local government. More important even than this, it must reflect itself in the reduction, in all forms of primary production, of the largest source of the country's national income. The responsibility of rural local government for the development of rural centres and for the encouragement of closer settlement is one which cannot be lightly passed over. Therein lies the financial strength not only of county government, but also of the nation's wealth. This does not infer that other types of authorities making up our localgovernment system do not have their responsibilities and do not require reorganization. For the general well-being of the nation, they have an equal responsibility to undertake wherever possible, the functions with which they are entrusted, and in order that they may do so economically and efficiently require some measure of reorganization, both functionally and in area. However, the reconstruction of count}" government, with strong units able to cope with modern requirements of local government in an efficient and scientific way, and adequate finance to attend to the major local government requirements of a locality, is, in our opinion, of paramount importance, and one of the first and major tasks to be undertaken. The result will be, we believe, that the local community spirit will be enhanced, and at the same time a broader and less parochial outlook will emerge. These observations do not, however, infer that county government has not played a vital part in the development and progress of the country in the past. We desire at this stage to pay a tribute to the voluntary work undertaken over the years by the members
35
H—2B
of the various local authorities which were the subject of review at the inquiry. The fact that we recommend a change in structure is no reflection on the service given in the past. The imperative demands of progress have, in many spheres, rendered existing institutions unsuitable for the future. In so far as we have recommended a change in the existing structure, we have done so not in any sense as a reflection on the existing local authorities, but because we are confident that enhanced service can be rendered by their reorganization. As in the case of area, our observations have equal force in respect of rateable values. These cannot necessarily be accepted as the yardstick of an efficient county unit, as such matters as the preservation of community of interest, topographical considerations, type of country to be administered, stages of development, and other factors must be taken into consideration. The wishes of representatives of local authorities and of the ■electors themselves are of vital concern, and should be acceded to wherever possible when observations made by them are soundly and constructively based. In the reorganization proposed by us, we have had due regard to this aspect and have met, as far as possible, the expressed views of the local authorities' representatives. In two of the groups we have recommended, the rateable capital value falls below what we consider to be the minimum requirement of £5,000,000 to provide sound county administration. In one case, however, that of the Tawera, Selwyn, Malvern, Paparua {West Melton Riding) group, the two counties with the largest collective rateable capital value of over £3,000,000 are, we understand, due for revaluation, and this, it is believed, will bring the total rateable value close to or above what we consider to be the basic minimum. In the other case also, that of the Akaroa, Mount Herbert, and Wairewa group, the present rateable capital value of which approximates £3,200,000, the whole area will probably be revalued during the next four years. There were, however, other considerations, such as their topographical features, difficulty of administration in -conjunction with areas of flat country, road construction and maintenance problems dissimilar to those on the plains, plant requirements, community of interest, and other factors, which determined the desirability of their grouping as one unit. The question of riding finance has been considered by us. There are four counties which still retain separate riding accounts —namely, Heathcote, Rangiora, Waimairi, and Wairewa. In the case of the Heathcote and Waimairi Counties there is not a wide variation in the general rates in the pound struck for the current year in the respective ridings remaining in these counties. This also applies with regard to Wairewa and Rangiora. There is no difference in the general rate in the pound struck between the two ridings of the latter county. As a consequence, it appears that there will be very little hardship on those ratepayers in ridings which are paying a lesser rate. In any case, the effect of the reorganization we have recommended will, we consider, progressively result in over-all economies and improved conditions which will more than compensate for any immediate hardship occasioned by the elimination of riding accounts internally. During the course of the inquiry the question was raised as to whether the existing counties, as ridings of a united county, could be financed from general rates made and levied in those ridings. In our opinion, the existing provisions of the Counties Act, 1920 {sections 10 and 121), enable general rates to be made and levied in the existing counties as ridings of a united county. Section 10 of the Act provides for the constitution by the ■Governor-General of a county formed by the union of two or more counties. The wording of this section, in our opinion, implies that on the union of two or more counties in pursuance of this section a new county is constituted. Provision is also made in the same section for the division of a county thus constituted into such number of ridings with such names and boundaries as the Governor-General thinks fit. ■ It is then mandatory on a newly elected Council of a united county, in pursuance of section 121 of the Act, to make and levy a general rate separately in each riding.
H—2B
36
We accordingly consider that there is sufficient statutory authority to institute riding finance upon the union of two or more counties, and that this position will obtain unless or until the Council of the united county decides by special order to alter it. The question of the retention of the existing counties as ridings during the immediate years when reorganization is being undertaken has considerable merit. It is desirable that a contemporaneous revaluation be undertaken in each group, and in the interim period the anomalies which exist through inequalities regarding plant and road and bridge standards can be reviewed and some measure of equation as between the existing counties reached. Although certain inequalities as between ridings may still remain, it is, in our opinion, desirable, in order that the full benefits of reorganization may be obtained, to dispense with riding finance not longer than five years after the union has been effected. Since the legislation providing for the abolition of riding finance was enacted in 1931, the desirability of its abolition, in the general interest of county administration, has been recognized by 89 of the 125 counties in operation in New Zealand. Some of those counties which still retain riding finance have problems not common to the counties under review, such as extensive urbanization in certain ridings, which necessitate the retention of riding accounts in order to provide urban amenities. The ability of County Councils to organize their programme of works from year to year over the whole county and to prosecute works requiring urgent attention not only effects long-term economy, but encourages development in more backward areas, with ultimate recompense from the rateable potential created. The question, however, is one which can best be determined by the individual Councils during the period to which reference has been made. The basis of rating in all the counties which have been the subject of review, as well as in the Southbridge Town District, is the capital-value system. Consequently no difficulties arise in this respect as the result of the unions we have recommended. There is, however, one aspect to which we desire to draw attention, and that is the desirability of the early implementation of the policy of issuing building permits throughout all the districts the subject of the review. The adoption of building by-laws will, we consider y unify and improve the standard of rural housing and building construction in each county, and the issue of permits in all cases will result in the valuation rolls being kept up to date. The effect will be to strengthen year by year the rating potential, and to establish equality in rating liability as between ratepayers. During the course of the inquiry a witness commented on the urgent need throughout the country for the improvement of rural roads, but he stressed the problem of finance. The proposal which had been advanced for a pound-for-pound subsidy on maintenance was negatived as being too cumbersome and because of the fact that it would lead to departmental control of county roads. The suggestion was made that, instead of loading the land with further rates, all taxation derived from road-users might be spent on roads. An increase in the maximum general rate subsidy, based on the amount which is recoverable on a rate of |d. in the pound on the rateable capital value, with a maximum of £2,500 for any one county, was also suggested. Both suggestions affect rural government generally, and we have considered it desirable to make reference to the matter in view of the growing problem of financing the maintenance and improvement of rural roads occasioned by the use of such roads by the general motoring public and transport operators. At the same time, it must be recognized that both State and main highway construction and maintenance are wholly or substantially the financial responsibility of the Government. The question, however, is one which is not within our jurisdiction, but we do consider that if rural government is to assume its rightful place in local government, any system of financial assistance which may be given consideration should not involve the removal of the control of county roads from those County Councils which are properly equipped to undertake their full responsibilities.
37
H—2B
The union of the counties in the groups proposed by us should not result in increased costs to the ratepayers. On the contrary, as the result of the elimination of the present duplication of offices, workshops, stores, garages, transport, staff, and so on, savings will be effected. Fifteen of the seventeen counties at present maintain separate offices and administrative staffs. The other two employ part-time county clerks who provide their own staff and office accommodation and equipment. The total salaries paid to fifty-one employees, comprising office staff and others, engineers, and inspectors, but not including consulting engineers' fees, was £18,038 for the year ended 31st March, 1949. These figures include also the employees of the Southbridge Town Board and the Waimakariri- Ashley Water-supply Board. Even assuming that the same number of employees will be necessary to administer the four new local authorities, although that is a question of some doubt, the cost of other administrative expenses will most certainly be reduced. The maintenance of a number of separate offices with separate office equipment, telephones, books, and stationery will not be necessary, while the expense of conducting nineteen separate elections to elect 136 representatives will be reduced as the result of there being only four Councils to elect. The travelling-expenses of representatives will also be reduced. Apart from reduced administrative expenses, increased efficiency should result consequent on the grouping of office staff and their specialization in particular duties. In three of the groups the county clerk - engineers at present employed in a dual capacity will be enabled to direct the whole of their attention to engineering duties. In regard to the Banks Peninsula group, the collective savings as the result of the maintenance of one office, together with other savings as previously mentioned, and the discontinuance of the services of the part-time clerk of the Mount Herbert County Council at an annual fee of £3OO, should provide more than sufficient funds for the employment of a resident engineer. The ability of the grouped counties to employ labour-saving road machinery should xesult in a higher standard of road construction and maintenance at no greater longterm cost and with more services to the ratepayers. For instance, evidence was tendered by one qualified technical witness to the effect that in his opinion, if his Council had special equipment to carry out certain works instead of having to undertake them by contract, a saving of 25 per cent, would be effected. Evidence submitted referred to the desirability of the employment by local authorities of a resident engineer. With this we concurred. The three engineers employed by local authorities stressed the need for the employment of a full-time engineer, while the District Engineer of the Ministry of Works made pointed reference to the fact that only one of the counties employed a full-time registered engineer. He stated that counties should have sufficient rating potential to support a balanced executive staff, and referred to the fact that when a local authority has no qualified technical staff, difficulties arise with his Department when discussions take place on technical details. He also maintained that even the employment of a foreman who knew the district thoroughly was not satisfactory, as the responsibility for engineering work should not rest with an unqualified man. In this connection it should be pointed out that under existing legislation, local authorities must employ qualified engineers when undertaking certain works. The ability of local authorities to attract qualified technical officers to their staffs is, in our opinion, essential to their successful operation, but it is apparent that if they are to retain the services of administrators and technicians of the highest calibre the areas they administer must, in many instances, be widened. In reaching our decisions, regard was had, as far as possible, to the representations made to us by the majority of the Councils represented. After a thorough sifting of the evidence which was presented to us at the inquiry and as the result of our own exhaustive investigations, we are of the opinion that most of the difficulties with which
H—2B
38
the existing counties have been faced can be overcome by the union of the districts we have recommended. The peculiarities in the North Canterbury region are dissimilar tO' many other localities in New Zealand. The general observations we have made, however,, regarding the local-government structure in the Dominion apply with equal force in many other instances. Our provisional decisions were promulgated on the 23rd December, 1949, with a view to co-ordinating the final decisions, as far as possible, with the date determined for the implementation of the final schemes regarding Christchurch metropolitan local government. Our final decisions cannot be made until after the implementation of our decisions relating to Christchurch, and for this reason further action has been deferred. Consideration was given at the inquiry to the question whether the Leeston Town District should be absorbed in the County of Ellesmere. Representations on this matter had previously been made to the Commission in 1947. A preliminary investigation had then been made, but it was decided to defer the matter until the review of all the local authorities in the area was undertaken. Leeston Town District, comprising an area of 391 acres, was constituted a dependent town district in May, 1922, and was granted the status of an independent town district on the 11th January, 1923. There has been only a slight increase in its population since 1926, the present population being 650. The rateable capital value of this district as at the 31st March, 1948, was £211,740, this value being the basis on which general rates are struck. An examination of the rating position revealed that the rate-payers of Leeston are paying a higher rate than they would pay if the district formed part of the County of Ellesmere and was administered pursuant to the Counties Amendment Act, 1949, as a county township. This recent statutory provision provides wider powers than existed hitherto for the purpose of township improvement and development. Separate rating areas may now be created by a County Council on receipt of a petition from a majority of the ratepayers, and on the creation of such areas ratepayers have certain rights of representation. This provision will enable finance to be provided in county townships for the construction and maintenance of public works, and such smaller urban areas can be improved and developed. While the Ellesmere County Council did not desire to include the Town District of Leeston in the county unless the Leeston residents supported such a proposal, it affirmed that there was nothing in the administration of the township that the county could not successfully undertake. The County Council hires its machinery to the Board, and when required has supplied road-metal from its quarry. The administration of the town district is undertaken by a part-time officer, and the Town Board employs one full-time employee and a casual labourer. No general amenities are provided by the Board, although small subsidies are granted to local organizations which provide a park and a public library. Evidence for and against the absorption of the district in the county was heard, and the Commission decided that until a general review of urban districts throughout the Dominion has been made the town district should be permitted to retain its separate existence. The question as to whether any scheme of reorganization should affect the status of the Dependent Town District of Southbridge was also considered at the inquiry. This rural township was constituted a dependent town district on the sth March, 1885, and comprises an area of 527 acres. No change in its status has been made in the intervening years. The population has fallen from 668 in 1886 to the estimated figure of 390 as at the Ist April, 1949. The rateable capital value, on which the rates are levied, was £92,440 at 31st March, 1948. If the town district was incorporated in the county, the ratepayers of the district would pay much lower rates than at present, and we considered that this district could be successfully administered by the Ellesmere County as a rural township. Here again the County Council's attitude was that, unless the residents of the town district supported
39
H—2B
such a proposal, it did not desire its inclusion in the county. It was affirmed, however, that there was nothing in the administration of the township which the Council could not successfully undertake. Southbridge is situated some four and a half miles from the county headquarters at Leeston, which, in our opinion, is the main business and administrative centre for the surrounding country. The Ellesmere County Council at present assists the Town Board with its road maintenance, and meets the cost of health inspection for the district, although no general rates are levied by the County Council on the town district. General rates levied by the Town Board average approximately £5BO per annum. A part-time town clerk and one maintenance workman are employed, while another employee acts as caretaker of the Town Hall. The total value of the Board's plant, including a fire-engine, is £320. From an inspection of the district, it was evident to us that there had been no marked progress in the township in recent years, and this was further evidenced by the decline in population. There are many townships in the Dominion with much larger resources and population which are being administered efficiently and provided with more amenities by County Councils. We decided that the town district should be merged in the County of Ellesmere, or in such other united county of which the County of Ellesmere may form part. The question of the continuance of the Waimakariri-Ashley Water-supply Board was also considered by us during the course of the inquiry. The Board's district comprises approximately 120,259 acres, being portions of the Eyre, Oxford, and Rangiora Counties. Representation on the Board consists of five members, and the Board's revenue, approximating £2,850 per annum, is derived from water charges based on the acreage and the value of the land. The staff of the Board consists of a secretary-overseer, three rangers, and a caretaker, whose remuneration collectively totals £l,BBO per annum. The plant of the Board is valued at £l5O, heavy transport plant and equipment being hired when required. Other assets owned by the Board total £750. The Chairman of this Board expressed the view that no advantage would be gained by the transfer of the Board's functions to any other authority, and he indicated that the consumers of water in the district now had the privilege of electing their own representatives to control the water-race system, thus ensuring closer touch with the controlling authority. Extensive mileages of water-races in areas south of the Waimakariri River are controlled by separate County Councils, and the systems are integrated. There was no evidence presented to the effect that this form of dual control was unsatisfactory, but, on the contrary, we were satisfied that the water-race systems in the various counties south of the Waimakariri River, which are much more extensive than those administered by the Waimakariri-Ashley Water-supply Board, are adequately and harmoniously administered by the various County Councils. The Chairman of one of the County Councils in whose district the Waimakariri-Ashley Water-supply Board operated expressed the view that if the whole of the water-race system was in one county it could probably be controlled as efficiently by the County as by the Board. We came to the conclusion that if the functions of this Board were transferred to the united county we have recommended, administrative and operational savings would result, in that the cost of maintaining a separate office and of conducting elections would be eliminated, while the consumers would have the advantage of the services of an engineer and the use of the united County Council's machinery and plant when necessary. We accordingly decided that, on the union of the Ashley, Eyre, Kowai, Oxford, and Rangiora Counties, the Waimakariri-Ashley Water-supply Board should be dissolved and its assets and liabilities transferred to the county comprising the aforesaid united counties.
H—2B
40
Six provisional schemes providing for the following matters were promulgated on the 23rd December, 1949 : (1) Alterations of the boundaries of the counties of Ellesmere, Eyre, Malvern, Paparua, and Selwyn, and upon such alterations being effected, the union of the counties of Malvern, Selwyn, and Tawera. (2) Upon the alterations of the boundaries of the counties of Ellesmere, Eyre, Malvern, Paparua, and Selwyn being effected, and upon the inclusion in the City of Christchurch of portions of the counties of Halswell, Heathcote, Paparua, and Waimairi, and the exclusion of an area from the City of Christchurch and its inclusion in the County of Heathcote, as provided in the final schemes 2-5 and 7 relating to Christchurch metropolitan local Government, the union of the counties of Ellesmere, Halswell, Heathcote, Paparua, Springs, and Waimairi. (3) The union of the counties of Akaroa, Mount Herbert, and Wairewa. (4) Upon the alterations of the boundaries of the counties of Eyre and Paparua, the union of the counties of Ashley, Eyre, Kowai, Oxford, and Rangiora. (5) Upon the union of the counties of Ashley, Eyre (with boundaries as adjusted), Kowai, Oxford, and Rangiora, the transfer of the functions, assets, and liabilities of the Waimakariri-Ashley Water-supply Board to the Council of the united county comprising the districts of the aforesaid five counties, and, contemporaneously with the election of such Council, the dissolution of the Waimakariri-Ashley Water-supply Board. (6) The abolition of the Dependent Town District of Southbridge, and its merger in the County of Ellesmere, or in such other county of which the County of Ellesmere may form part. Objections to the provisional schemes have been lodged, but the Commission has withheld action in connection therewith pending the implementation of the final schemes relating to Christchurch metropolitan local government. VII. ALTERATION OF BOUNDARIES: NOT INVOLVING PUBLIC INQUIRIES (1) Whakatane Borough : Whakatane County On the 29th April, 1949, the Whakatane Borough Council requested the Commission to give consideration to the alteration of its boundaries by the exclusion of a small area of approximately 14 acres from the Whakatane County and its inclusion in the borough. Both local authorities, as well as the owner of the property, were in agreement on the proposal. A provisional scheme was promulgated, following investigations into the matter, on the 15th September, 1949, and as no objections were lodged, a final scheme was promulgated on the 28th October, 1949. (2) Waipa County : Raglan County Arising out of a request to the Waipa County Council from ratepayers in the Pirongia West area of the Raglan County for the transfer of an area approximating 7,000 acres to the Waipa County, both counties requested the Commission to give consideration to the proposal, and signified their assent to same. The proposal was investigated, and we were satisfied that the adjustment was in the best interests of both counties and the ratepayers in the particular area. A provisional scheme was promulgated on the 6th October, 1949, and no objections were lodged. The final scheme was promulgated on the 29th November, 1949.
41
H—2B
(3) Kaikoura River District A petition pursuant to section 3 of the River Boards Amendment Act, 1913, from certain ratepayers in the Kaikoura County with properties in the area adjoining the Kaikoura River District was presented to the Governor-General praying that the boundaries of the River District of Kaikoura be extended to include certain areas therein, and was referred to the Commission. Following its investigation of the matter, the Commission assented to the proposed alteration of boundaries, and a provisional scheme was promulgated on the 15th September, 1949. One objection to the provisional scheme was lodged, but its nature was such that it was necessary to obtain clarification before the matter could be reconsidered. Every opportunity was extended to the objector to clarify the matters generally raised by him, but no further reply was received from him. The Commission accordingly promulgated a final scheme on the 20th December, 1949. (4) Grey Electric-power District : Buller Electric-power District A request was received from the General Manager of the State Hydro-electric Department for the Commission's recommendation for the issue of a Proclamation providing for the alteration of the boundaries of the Grey and Buller Electric-power Districts. It was proposed to exclude an area from the Buller Electric-power District, and to include that area in the Grey Electric-power District. The Department considered that the Grey Electric-power Board was in a better position to undertake the reticulation of the particular area, which, it was pointed out, was some fifty miles from the existing Buller reticulation. As both the electric-power districts generally conformed with the boundaries of the Grey and Inangahua Counties, the Commission requested an assurance from both Boards that no electoral difficulties would arise if effect were given to the proposal. The Commission also requested that the proposal be advertised in the newspapers circulating in the district inviting objections from interested parties, and that, if there were any objections, they be submitted to the Commission. No objections were lodged to the proposal, and on receipt of the other information requested, together with certified copies of the resolutions of both Boards agreeing to the proposal, the Commission recommended that the adjustment of the boundaries be given effect to in pursuance of section 6 of the Electric-power Boards Act, 1925. (5) Waitaki Electric-power District A request was made on behalf of the Waitaki Electric-power Board by the General Manager of the State Hydro-electric Department for the inclusion in the Waitaki Electricpower District of an outer area of the South Canterbury Electric-power Board. A petition, signed by not less than 25 per cent, of the ratepayers in the area proposed for inclusion in the Waitaki Electric-power District, was submitted in support of the request. The statutory procedure had been followed in giving the requisite notification to the effect that the petition was to be presented and had been deposited for public inspection at the offices of the Waitaki County Council for a period of not less than one month. No objections to the proposal were lodged. It was stated in support of the application that the South Canterbury Electric-power District was extensive and also had a large outer area. A substantial portion of the Board's area was sparsely settled, and it was considered that the Board would not be able to extend its reticulation for some time. Little new construction had been undertaken in the Board's district in so far as line extensions were concerned, although it had had to consider the reconstruction of many of its existing lines. The Waitaki Board, on the other hand, was able to proceed, it was stated, with the extension of its reticulation to the adjacent and more closely settled portions of the area which it desired to include in its district, and as a result the settlers in this area had more definite prospects of receiving electric power from the Waitaki Board than they had from the South Canterbury Board. The proposed adjustment still
H—2B
42
left a substantial outer area with the South Canterbury Board, more particularly in the Mackenzie and Geraldine Counties. The relevant documentary evidence was furnished in support of the request, together with two certified copies of the Board's resolutions consenting to the proposal. After investigating the matter for itself, the Commission recommended that the alteration of the boundaries of the Waitaki Electric-power District be given effect to in pursuance of section 3 (3) of the Electric-power Boards Act, 1925. (6) Thames Valley Electric-power District and Tauranga Electric-power District The General Manager of the State Hydro-electric Department referred a proposal to the Commission regarding an adjustment of the boundaries of the Tauranga and Thames Valley Electric-power Districts. Some years previously an adjustment of county boundaries had been made providing for the exclusion of an area at Waihi Beach from the Tauranga County and its inclusion in the Ohinemuri County, but the power districts had not been altered. The Commission caused publicity to be given in the district, and, as no objections were received and both Power Boards were agreeable, the boundaries were adjusted. VIII. UNION AND MERGER OF DISTRICTS : INVOLVING PUBLIC INQUIRIES (1) (a) Christchurch City : Riccarton Borough (b) Christchurch City : Lyttelton Borough Reference has previously been made to these districts under the heading of " Christchurch Metropolitan Local Government " (pages 10-14). (2) Wellington City : Johnsonville Town District Reference has previously been made to these districts under the heading " Johnsonville Town District and Certain Areas in the Makara County " (pages 20-26). (3) Ellesmere County : Southbridge Town District (4) (a) Ellesmere, Halswell, Heathcote, Paparua, Springs, and Waimairi Counties (b) Ellesmere County : Leeston Town District. (5) Ashley, Eyre, Kowai, Oxford, and Rangiora Counties (6) Akaroa, Mount Herbert, and Wairewa Counties (7) Malvern, Selwyn, and Tawera Counties Reference has previously been made to these districts ( (3) to (7) ) under the heading of " Local Authorities in Rural Areas of North Canterbury " (pages 26-40). IX. ABOLITION OF DISTRICTS: INVOLVING A PUBLIC INQUIRY (1) Christchurch Drainage District (2) Christchurch Tramway District Reference has previously been made to these districts ((1) and (2) ) under the heading of " Christchurch Metropolitan Local Government " (pages 10-14). X. ABOLITION OF DISTRICTS: NOT INVOLVING PUBLIC INQUIRIES (1) Ahikouka River District (2) Kahutara River District (3) South Wairarapa River District (4) Te Ore Ore River District (5) Waiohine River District
43
H—2B
Five petitions, addressed to His Excellency the Governor-General by the Wairarapa Catchment Board in pursuance of section 141 of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act, 1941, praying for the abolition of the Ahikouka, Kahutara, South Wairarapa, Te Ore Ore, and Waiohine River Districts as from the 31st March, 1950, were referred to the Commission for consideration. Prior to the submission of these petitions the Wairarapa Catchment Board had reported to the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council concerning the proposed abolition of these five districts, and had recommended that their functions be transferred to the Catchment Board. The Wairarapa Catchment Board had also indicated that it proposed to retain, in an advisory capacity, representatives from each of the river districts. The Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council supported the proposals. After investigating the proposals, five provisional schemes were promulgated by the Commission on 4th January, 1950. An objection was lodged by a ratepayer in the Te Ore Ore River District concerning the question of the appointment of. an advisory committee to the Catchment Board. It was pointed out in this objection that the functions of the Te Ore Ore River Board were exercised by the Masterton County Council, on which there was no direct ratepayer representation within the confines of the Te Ore Ore River District. The objection was investigated, and an undertaking was given by the Te Ore Ore River Board —i.e., the Masterton County Council—that it would agree to a modification to enable direct ratepayer representation from the Te Ore Ore River District on the proposed advisory committee, in lieu of the appointment of the Chairman and two members of the Board in that capacity. The Catchment Board advised the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council that it had reserved the right, in respect of the Te Ore Ore River Board, to meet the position regarding direct ratepayer representation, and the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council stated that it had no reason to doubt that the Board would comply with the wishes of the Council. Reference had previously been made by the Commission to this particular question in a report issued following a public inquiry held in 1948. The views then expressed by the Commission were as follows: An important question raised by the River Board representatives was that the River Board members all resided in the district and all had an intimate knowledge of the problems at issue. They maintained with justification that this knowledge was valuable to the River Board and materially assisted in the maintenance work which the River Board undertook. We agree that this local knowledge is of considerable importance, but not of sufficient importance to outweigh the other advantages, which will accrue if the Catchment Board is given control of the river. On the other hand, this local knowledge should not be entirely lost, and we therefore recommend that the Catchment Board give early consideration to the use of a local advisory committee from among the residents. In this way the local knowledge will not be lost to the Catchment Board. The objector was advised as to the manner in which the matter had been dealt with, and five final schemes were promulgated on the 3rd March, 1950. XI. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED : INVOLVING A PUBLIC INQUIRY Ashley, Eyre, Kowai, Oxford, and Rangiora County Councils : Waimakariri-Ashley Water Supply Board Reference has previously been made to these local authorities under the heading of " Local Authorities in the Rural Areas of North Canterbury " (pages 26- 40). XII. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED: NOT INVOLVING A PUBLIC INQUIRY Kaituna River Board : Tumu Kaituna and Te Puke Drainage Boards On the 3rd May, 1948, the Kaituna River Board referred to the Commission a copy of a resolution passed at a combined meeting of the Te Puke Drainage Board, the Tumu Kaituna Drainage Board, and the Kaituna River Board requesting the Commission to investigate a proposal to dissolve the three Boards and set up one authority
H—2B
44
to control land-drainage and river works in the area affected by the lower reaches of the Kaituna River, and also to consider the question of the inclusion in the new authority of any other areas which should be included in the new authority, for the purpose of giving maximum benefit and control in the said lower reaches of the Kaituna River and the land draining into it. The matter was thoroughly investigated and the views of the parties obtained as to the extent of the areas which it was considered should be included in the new authority. A report was sought from the River Board's engineer, and on the Ist August, 1949, the three Boards indicated that they had reached a measure of agreement on the proposals. Both of the drainage districts of Tumu Kaituna and Te Puke were within the River District of Kaituna. Proposals for the dissolution of the two Drainage Boards and the transfer of their powers and functions to the Kaituna River Board were submitted to the Commission on the 16th August, 1949. Further investigation was undertaken, and the Kaituna River Board indicated that if effect were given to the proposals of the three Boards it would facilitate its ultimate absorption by any Catchment Board which might be set up to control the Board's district at such time as the Catchment Board was in a position effectively to take over the Board's undertaking. The Board also indicated that in the opinion of its members, and in the light of expert evidence which it had before it, its present district was large enough to embrace the land affected by a major river-diversion scheme which was proposed. Further, that in the Kaituna River Board's opinion the present number of members of the Board, seven, was adequate for the future administration of the district. Both the Tumu Kaituna and Te Puke Drainage Boards signified their agreement to the transfer of their powers and functions to the Kaituna River Board. Publicity was given locally to the proposals, and we were advised that no objections were received by any one of the Boards. The Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council also consented to the proposals, on the understanding that at such time as a Bay of Plenty Catchment Board was constituted and the Board was effectively operating, the functions of the Kaituna River Board would be transferred to it. The Commission promulgated a provisional scheme on the 20th December, 1949. No objections were lodged, and a final scheme was promulgated on the Ist March, 1950. XIII. CONSTITUTION OF A DISTRICT: INVOLVING A PUBLIC INQUIRY Constitution op an Independent Town District: Tawa Flat-Linden Localities in Makara County Reference has previously been made to this district under the heading of " Johnsonville Town District and Certain Areas in the Makara County " (pages 20-26). XIV. CONSTITUTION OF DISTRICT : NOT INVOLVING A PUBLIC INQUIRY Tuapeka Rabbit District A request was made to the Commission by the Department of Agriculture on the 3rd July, 1949, for the constitution of the Tuapeka Rabbit District, comprising 85,500 acres, in pursuance of section 29 of the Rabbit Nuisance Amendment Act, 1947, and a petition addressed to His Excellency the Governor-General purporting to be signed by 106 ratepayers with rateable properties in the proposed district supported the request. Owing to the Commission being unable to obtain certain requisite information, considerable delay occurred, but eventually it was ascertained that the valid signatories to the petition numbered only 87 out of 197 ratepayers in the district, while the acreage represented by the signatories was 41,651 acres of the total area of 85,500 acres. The Commission accordingly decided not to recommend the constitution of the district for
H—2B
45
the time being. Subsequently a further petition purporting to be signed by a further 21 ratepayers in the area was forwarded to the Commission, but as it appeared doubtful whether there was a majority of the ratepayers of the proposed district, either in number or area, in favour of the proposal, and in any event it was clear that there was substantial opposition to it, the Commission decided to adopt the procedure of issuing a provisional scheme in pursuance of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946, instead of recommending the constitution of the district in pursuance of the Rabbit Nuisance Act. This enabled any objections to the proposal to be considered by the Commission before a final determination was made. The provisional scheme was promulgated on the 27th March, 1950, and the time for lodging objections expires on the Ist May, 1950. XY. CHANGE OF STATUS : NOT INVOLVING A PUBLIC INQUIRY Runanga Urban Fire District Reference has been made to this district under the heading of " Miscellaneous : (1) Fire Districts " (page 48). XVI. OTHER PUBLIC INQUIRIES HELD (1) Local Government : North Shore Area, Auckland The Select Committee which reported to Parliament in 1945 on all phases of the local-government system in the Dominion made special reference to the urgency of the problems of local government in Auckland and the environs. Since it was constituted the Commission has given serious consideration to the approach which should be made to the problems in this particular area. Following the receipt of a request from the central committee of the seven Progressive and Ratepayers' Associations in the East Coast Bays area of the North Shore forming portion of the Takapuna Riding of the Waitemata County for an inquiry embracing the East Coast Bays, the Commission decided that in reviewing the question of the desirability or otherwise of reorganization of local government in Auckland and the environs it should first investigate the position in the North Shore area. An inquiry was accordingly commenced on the sth July, 1949. The scope of the inquiry included the boroughs of Devonport, Takapuna, Birkenhead, and Northcote, and also areas in the Waitemata County, including the East Coast Bays, extending from Castor Bay to Long Bay, as well as Rangitoto Island and Herald Island, generally known as Pine Island, neither of which islands are within the district of a local authority. The inquiry continued until 22nd July, when it was adjourned until 2nd August. It concluded on the Bth August, 1949. As certain aspects of the problem are related to the Auckland metropolitan question, the Commission decided to withhold its report and findings pending an inquiry relating to the latter which was commenced on 7th November, 1949, and adjourned on 14th November. When this inquiry was resumed on the 13th February, 1950, an application was made by counsel for the Auckland Metropolitan Drainage Board for an adjournment, on the grounds that the Board's officers were fully engaged in the preparation of technical and other data relating to legislation of major consequence to the future activities of the Board. The future drainage scheme for Auckland was stated to be one of the utmost importance and urgency. Counsel for the majority of the local authorities represented at the inquiry supported the application. The Auckland Chamber of Commerce and the Hon. T. Bloodworth, M.L.C., who had prepared proposals for the reorganization of local government in Auckland and the environs, strenuously opposed the application. Although the Commission desired to proceed with the inquiry as soon as possible, upon consideration of the application, it decided to adjourn the inquiry sine die, and indicated that the progress of the legislation would be watched with a view to resuming the inquiry.
H—2B
46
(2) Local Government : Auckland Metropolitan Area and Environs A preliminary investigation concerning the functions and districts of local authorities in the Auckland metropolitan area and environs was undertaken by the Commission during 1949. On the completion of this investigation it was decided to hold a public inquiry to review the local government structure in the area embracing the whole or portions of districts of thirty local authorities —namely, the Auckland City Council; the Ellerslie, Henderson, Manurewa, Mount Albert, Mount Eden, Mount Roskill, New Lynn, Newmarket, Onehunga, One Tree Hill, Otahuhu, Papakura, and Papatoetoe Borough Councils ; the Glen Eden and Howick Town Boards ; the Mount Wellington, Orapiu, Panmure Township, and Western Waiheke Road Boards ; the Manukau and Waitemata County Councils ; the Auckland and Waitemata Electricpower Boards ; the Auckland Harbour Board ; the Auckland Hospital Board ; the Auckland Metropolitan Drainage Board ; the Auckland Metropolitan Fire Board ; the Auckland Metropolitan Milk Board ; and the Auckland Transport Board. The inquiry was opened at Auckland on the 7th November, 1949, and a comprehensive survey of the developments in the structure of local government which had taken place in Auckland from the foundation of the city in 1840 to date was made by the Chairman of the Commission in order that the evolution of local government in this locality could be appreciated by all interested parties. The parliamentary Select Committee which was set up in 1944 to inquire into and report on all phases of the local government system in the Dominion had made special reference to the problems in Auckland, and had stated that they required immediate attention. The Select Committee had also reported that it considered that there was no virtue in the multiplicity of local authorities, and if simplicity could be obtained with as close a relationship as possible with the people served, then it was better that there should be as few as possible local governing authorities in existence. The Commission desires to emphasize, however, that it is not in any way committed to the policy of the wholesale amalgamation of local governing authorities as being the solution to the problems which exist in various parts of New Zealand, and that a scheme of reorganization in any particular locality will be promulgated only if it is evident, after a thorough examination of all aspects of the position, that some reorganization is necessary and desirable. This observation has particular reference to local government in the Auckland metropolitan area and environs. The issues submitted by the Commission to the interested parties at the inquiry were as follows : First, the overriding and major issue as to whether the existing structure of local government control in Auckland and its environs was satisfactory from the point of view of efficiency and economy, or whether a reorganization scheme should be prepared in respect of any of the districts of local authorities included within the scope of the inquiry. Secondly, in the event of the Commission concluding that a reorganization scheme should be prepared- — (a) Should any two or more adjoining districts, whether districts of the same kind or not, be amalgamated, and, if so, which districts. (b) Should any district be merged in any other district. (c) Should any or all of the functions of any local authority be transferred to any other local authority. This issue necessarily involved consideration of the question whether, in the event of the Commission deciding that the local government of Auckland should be concentrated in a single body, any or all of the functions now being exercised by certain ad hoc authorities should be transferred to the single authority. (d) Should any of the boundaries of adjoining districts be altered. (e) Should any existing district be converted into a district of a different kind.
47
H—2B
Thirdly, in the event of the Commission concluding that there was no necessity to disturb the existing structure of the territorial authorities, or should it decide that the area should be governed by a reduced number of territorial authorities, should the control and co-ordination of essential services such as water-supply, sewerage and drainage, transport, electric-power supply, town-planning, and such like be in the hands of a metropolitan Board, leaving the management of the purely local services to the territorial authorities. Fourthly, in the event of the area continuing to be administered by more than one territorial authority, should further special or ad hoc authorities be created to control any of the community services not at present controlled by such an authority. Fifthly, should any other form of local government administration be provided for the area in the interests of efficient, effective, and economic administration. Evidence of a factual nature was presented by the Ministry of Works, the Transport Department, the State Hydro-electric Department, and other Government Departments in order that the Commission might obtain a full appreciation of the functions exercised by the various State Departments in relation to the local authorities in the area, the public transport operations, and Government developmental proposals. Comprehensive factual data was presented by all the local authorities included within the scope of the inquiry, and the proposals which interested parties desired to bring before the notice of the Commission were outlined. So far as the local authorities were concerned, no proposals for any general over-all reorganization were submitted, but certain proposals affecting individual districts were referred to. A representative of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce indicated that evidence would be submitted in support of a single territorial local authority, including the whole or portions of the districts of all the territorial and ad hoc local authorities included within the scope of the inquiry. It was also indicated that the Chamber of Commerce proposed advocating that the metropolitan authority should be the sole rating authority, and should also control electric-power supply, transport, water and drainage systems, fire protection, and milk distribution. The Hon. T. Bloodworth, M.L.C., although not present at the opening of the inquiry, had advised the Commission that he intended to submit proposals in support of a central authority to control all services common to the metropolitan area. It was stated on behalf of the Manukau County Council that the Council had given consideration to the question of local government within the county, and was of the opinion that the creation of further small units of local government within the county would result in a weakening rather than a strengthening of local government in the area. It was the Council's opinion that there should be one governing authority—the County Council —co-ordinating and controlling all the major functions of the small boroughs, town districts, county townships, and rural areas in the county. Under such circumstances, the County Council would be the single rating authority, and would provide the finance to meet the needs of the county as a whole and also for the smaller units of local government in the county. It was stated further that it was appreciated that if these proposals were adopted, counties would require increased powers, and that it was intended to submit detailed proposals to the Commission with a view to a recommendation being made by the Commission for the widening of the powers and functions of counties to enable effect to be given to the proposals.
H—2B
48
Other matters concerning the particular districts of local authorities submitted to the Commission at the inquiry, or by statutory petitions which had been referred to the Commission from time to time, were as follows : (1) The proposed change of status of the Mount Wellington Road District to that of a borough. (2) The proposed change of status of the Howick Town District to that of a borough, and an extension of the boundaries of the town district. (3) The proposed change of status of the Glen Eden Town District to that of a borough. (4) Proposals for the exclusion from the county of the whole or part of the Titirangi Riding of the Waitemata County and the inclusion thereof in the City of Auckland. (5) A proposal for the exclusion of an area from the Town District of Glen Eden and its inclusion in the County of Waitemata. (6) A proposal for the exclusion of an area from the City of Auckland and its inclusion in the Mount Wellington Road District. (7) A proposal for the exclusion of an area from the Mount Wellington Road District and its inclusion in the Borough of Otahuhu. (8) A proposal that the Manurewa Borough be merged in the County of Manukau, and proposals, supported by four statutory petitions, for the exclusion of substantial areas from the Borough of Manurewa and their inclusion in the County of Manukau. After the evidence of thirty-five witnesses had been heard, the inquiry was adjourned on the 14th November, 1949, to the 13th February, 1950, to give the interested parties the opportunity of considering the factual data which had been submitted and the various proposals for reorganization which had been made. The inquiry was resumed on the 13th February, 1950, and, as indicated elsewhere in this report, an application was made immediately by the Auckland Metropolitan Drainage Board for an adjournment, and the inquiry was adjourned sine die. The written submissions of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, the Hon. T. Bloodworth, M.L.C., and the Manukau County Council containing details of their proposals for reorganization have been, with the consent of those parties, distributed to all interested parties, and this will enable a thorough examination of the proposals to be made before the resumption of the inquiry. XVII. MISCELLANEOUS (1) Fire Districts The Fire Services Act which was passed in 1949 made provision for the constitution of united urban fire districts, urban fire districts, and secondary urban fire districts. In so far as the Local Government Commission is concerned, its functions still extend to the three types of fire districts. Certain additional provision has been made in the new legislation concerning the constitution and reorganization of fire districts generally. Previously, when applications were referred to it, it was the practice of the Commission to issue provisional and final schemes. We have, however, formulated a new procedure to meet the position which is in line with that applying to other types of local authorities. In future, when requests are made to the Commission relating to fire districts, providing all interests affected by the proposal have been fully consulted, the weight of opinion is clearly in favour of the proposal, and the nature of any objections which have been made to the proposal are such that there would be no further advantage in publicly clarifying them, it is proposed to expedite the matter by a recommendation for action to be taken under the Fire Services Act, 1949, instead of promulgating provisional and final schemes under the Local Government Commission Act, 1946. The Commission
49
H—2B
will, of course, in all cases exercise its discretion as to the type of procedure best suited to the particular circumstances. The new procedure was adopted in the year under review in the case of the constitution of secondary urban fire districts in the Bulls Town District, the Rawene Town District, and the urban areas of Culverden, Ranfurly, Murchison, and Titirangi, and also in connection with the reclassification of the Runanga Borough as an urban fire district. In the case of applications which were submitted to the Commission for the constitution of the fire districts of Te Kuiti and Eastbourne, the procedure of issuing provisional and final schemes was adopted, but following the passing of the Fire Services Act, 1949, they were constituted as urban fire districts under that Act. An application for the constitution of the Fire District of Motueka was also received by the Commission, and this district was duly constituted a secondary urban fire district under the new Act. (2) Rabbit Districts Since the Rabbit Destruction Council was constituted in pursuance of the Rabbit Nuisance Amendment Act, 1947, a considerable increase in the number of applications, either for constitution of new districts or for the extension or alteration of the boundaries of existing districts, have been submitted to the Commission. Observations have been made from time to time by the Rabbit Destruction Council and other parties regarding delays which have occurred in the constitution of districts. To enable the position to be clarified, a meeting was arranged between the Chairman of the Commission, the Chairman and Secretary of the Rabbit Destruction Council, and a representative of the Department of Agriculture. It was pointed out by the Chairman of the Commission that although the Rabbit Nuisance Amendment Act, 1947, provided for the compulsory constitution or alteration of the boundaries of rabbit districts without regard necessarily to the views of the ratepayers in the proposed districts, the Commission had decided that it would not consent to any proposals until the views of the ratepayers in the areas concerned had been ascertained. It was also pointed out that the Commission had previously requested that information as to the views of ratepayers and the acreages of their properties be submitted when applications were referred to the Commission. The Department of Agriculture had accordingly circularized its officers in the various districts with a view to giving effect to the Commission's requirements. A number of proposals, however, which had been submitted to us were not adequately supported by the factual information, and a good deal of work had been thrown on the small staff attached to the Commission in investigating the position in each case and referring the matters back for further inquiry. This had resulted in certain delays. The Chairman of the Rabbit Destruction Council indicated that he would extend every co-operation that was possible to meet the position. It was indicated subsequently that in order to meet the position the former procedure of circulating a petition in pursuance of the Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1928, would be undertaken. A marked improvement has resulted from this procedure, and we have accordingly been able to determine without delay most of the applications submitted to us. "Instances have arisen, however, where the procedure is not being followed, and certain delays are still occurring. We consider that proper attention should be given to the administrative requirements relating to the constitution and alteration of the boundaries of rabbit districts, in order that the work of the Rabbit Destruction Council can be expedited, and control in the eradication of the pest can be effectively undertaken without undue delays. During the year under review, forty-six requests were made by the Director-General of Agriculture to the Commission concerning proposals for the alteration of the boundaries of existing rabbit districts, the constitution, and the union of rabbit districts. 3—H 28
50
H—2B
The Commission investigated tlie various proposals and recommended the alteration of the boundaries of sixteen rabbit districts, the constitution of thirty-four rabbit districts, and the union of six rabbit districts to form two new rabbit districts. Reference is made to these proposals in detail in the Appendix, pages 57 and 58. As at 31st March, 1950, six of the requests made to the Commission by the DirectorGeneral of Agriculture had not been the subject of recommendations by the Commission. One of these requests had been received just prior to the conclusion of the year under review and had not been considered by the Commission, four were awaiting further information requested from the Director-General of Agriculture, and one was under consideration as to whether action to give effect to the proposal should be taken by the promulgation of a provisional scheme in pursuance of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946. (3) Constitution of District Committees Reference has previously been made to the constitution of district committees under the heading of " Christchurch Metropolitan Local Government" (pages 10-14). (4) Unimproved-value Rating System—Poll of Ratepayers : Christchurch Drainage District Reference has previously been made to the unimproved-value rating system under the heading of " Christchurch Metropolitan Local Government" (pages 10-14). (5) Electric-power Supply Reference has previously been made to electric-power supply under the heading of " Alteration of Boundaries : General" (page 10), and also under the heading of " Christchurch Metropolitan Local Government " (pages 10-14). (6) Tauranga Borough : Mount Maunganui Borough Tauranga Borough Council : Tauranga Harbour Board Early in the year under review a request was made to the Commission by the Tauranga Borough Council for consideration to be given to a proposal for the amalgamation of the Tauranga and Mount Maunganui Boroughs, and for the transfer of the functions of the Tauranga Harbour Board to the Tauranga Borough Council. Communications were received from the Mount Maunganui Borough Council and the Tauranga Harbour Board indicating their strong opposition to the Tauranga Borough Council's proposals. The proposed transfer of the functions of the Tauranga Harbour Board to the Tauranga Borough Council was also opposed by the Rotorua Borough Council, the Mount Maunganui Chamber of Commerce, and the Bay of Plenty Provincial Branch of the Federated Farmers (Inc.). Before the Commission had commenced its investigations into the matter the Tauranga Borough Council withdrew its request, and the Commission decided not to take any further action in regard to the request. |7) Waihi Borough In the year 1948 representations were made to the Government by the Waihi Borough Council concerning the financial and economic position of the Waihi Borough. The Council had submitted certain proposals to the Government with a view to assisting the borough during the period of transition from a mining town to a rural and industrial centre. There was every indication at the time that the Martha Gold-mine, employing some 350 men, would be closed down. The finances of the borough had been a matter of considerable concern for some years past owing to the progressive decline in gold
51
H—2B
revenue payable to the Borough Council, and also to the fact that the rateable values of the borough were too low to enable the loss in gold revenue to be made up from rates levied. Further difficulties had arisen resulting from the costly maintenance necessary in a borough with such an extensive and scattered district, the annual loss which had been incurred for some years in maintaining the gasworks, and the lack of adequate plant and machinery to undertake essential public services. On the 4th April, 1949, the Minister of Internal Affairs requested the Commission to review and report upon several particular matters relating to the borough. The staff of the Commission undertook a preliminary factual investigation at Waihi on the 29th June, and certain factual information was also obtained from the Ohinemuri County Council. On the completion of this preliminary survey the Commission proceeded to Waihi on the 10th August, 1949, and an investigation was conducted at the Borough Council Chambers into the various matters to which the Commission's attention had been directed. The Mayor, Councillors, and executive officers of the Waihi Borough Council were present at the investigation, as well as the Chairmen and executive officers of the Ohinemuri County Council and the Thames Valley Electric-power Board. Evidence was obtained from the representatives and officers of the various local authorities as well as from a former town clerk of the Waihi Borough Council. An inspection of the borough, including the Waihi Beach area, was made in order to satisfy ourselves as to the physical difficulties under which the borough operated. Considerable assistance in our investigation was rendered by the frank and realistic manner in which the various local authorities tendered their evidence. A careful analysis was made of all matters referred to us, and a report, with recommendations, was furnished to the Minister on the 21st October, 1949. (8) Karapiro Lake Domain In 1947 the Commission was requested to consider the question of the setting-up of a Domain Board to develop and control the area adjacent to Lake Karapiro as a public domain. A public inquiry was commenced at Hamilton on the 28th August, 1947, and all the local authorities in the environs were cited as parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, which continued for three days, it was evident that, with the exception of those local authorities whose districts were in the immediate vicinity of the lake, none of the local authorities in the Waikato were prepared to assume any responsibility for the development of the domain. The general objections to the proposal were two : first, that the lake and its environs could not be used for recreational and holiday purposes, and secondly, if they were so used, the responsibility was a national one. The Commission suggested that a conference be convened by the Mayor of Hamilton to ascertain whether some agreement as to the relevant responsibilities as between the various local authorities in the environs could be reached. A conference was held on the 23rd September, 1947, but no agreement was reached. In June, 1948, the Commission discussed the question with the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Department of Lands and Survey, when it was considered that arrangements should be made to acquire a portion of the land on the south bank of the river near the dam-site, and for the Lands and Survey Department to discuss the matter with the local authorities in the immediate environs of Karapiro. Further negotiations ensued between the directly interested parties and the Government Departments concerned, and resulted in an area of approximately 44 acres on the southern bank of the Karapiro Lake being declared a reserve for recreational purposes. (Gazette, No. 58, 6th October, 1949, page 2409). Conferences from time to time were held by the local authorities whose districts were in the vicinity of Karapiro Lake, and these finally resulted in the appointment to the Board of two representatives of the Cambridge Borough Council, including the Mayor ex officio, a 4—H 28
H—2B
52
member of the Leamington Town Board, two members of the Matamata County Council, and a member of the Waipa County Council. The other appointee to the Board was the District Electrical Engineer, Hamilton, representing the State Hydro-electric Department (Gazette, No. 58, 6th October, 1949, page 2408). (9) Commissioner Control : Localities or Porirua and Titahi Bay in Makara County Reference has previously been made to this matter under the heading of " Johnsonville Town District and Certain Areas of the Makara County " (pages 20-26). XVIII. MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION Preliminary factual investigations have been undertaken in connection with the following matters, and fixtures for public inquiries have been made in several instances : (1) A petition praying for the exclusion of an area from the Borough of West Harbour and its inclusion in the Borough of Port Chalmers. This petition may also involve consideration of minor adjustments to the boundaries of the Waikouaiti County. (2) A request for the inclusion in the Borough of Kaiapoi of certain areas in the counties of Eyre and Rangiora. This proposal raises the question as to whether the boundaries of the North Canterbury Electric-power District should be adjusted. (3) A proposal that the Town District of Leamington be merged in the Borough of Cambridge. (4) A petition praying for the exclusion of certain areas from the Borough of Patea and their inclusion in the County of Patea. (5) A petition praying for the inclusion of a small area in the City of Napier and its exclusion from the County of Hawke's Bay. (6) A petition praying for the inclusion of an area in the Borough of Masterton and its exclusion from the County of Masterton. Consideration is also being given to a request of the Masterton Borough and County Councils for a general review of the boundaries of the Borough of Masterton. (7) A petition praying for the inclusion of an area in the Borough of Mount Maunganui and its exclusion from the County of Tauranga. (8) A review of the counties in the Wairarapa. (9) A review of the Kawhia County and adjoining districts. (10) The question of a review of the counties of Weber and Dannevirke, and such other adjoining districts in the locality as may be determined. (11) A request for the inclusion of certain areas in, and the exclusion of certain areas from, the counties of Thames and Coromandel. (12) A request for the exclusion of an area from the County of Taranaki and its inclusion in the County of Inglewood. (13) A petition praying for the exclusion of an area from the County of Levels and its inclusion in the City of Timaru. At the same time as this matter is under consideration, the Commission may review the question of further adjustments of the boundaries of the City of Timaru. (14) A petition praying for the change of status of the Town District of Taradale to that of a borough. (15) A petition praying for the change of status of the Town District of Havelock North to that of a borough. (16) A petition praying for the dissolution of the Hawke's Bay Rivers Board, and the transfer of the powers and functions of that Board to the Hawke's Bay Catchment Board.
53
H—2B
(17) The proposed constitution of a Waikato Catchment District. (18) A request for the exclusion of an area from the Otago Electric-power Board's outer area of supply and its inclusion in the Teviot Electric-power District. (19) A request for the alteration of the boundaries of the Tauranga and Bay of Plenty Electric-power Districts. (20) A request for the alteration of the boundaries of the Thames Valley Electricpower District by the inclusion therein of areas (formerly portions of the Rotorua and Taupo Counties) comprising approximately 40,000 acres, being portion of the Matamata County. (21) Requests for the constitution or alteration of the boundaries of the following rabbit districts : Constitution — Alteration of Boundaries — Ngakuru. Waiau. Waitemata. Kyeburn. Ohau. Hautapu. XIX. STAFF In March, 1949, the staff of the Commission had been seriously depleted by the tragic deaths of the former Secretary of the Commission, who, at that time, was acting as counsel assisting the Commission, and also of the officer who had undertaken the duties of Secretary of the Commission in an acting capacity. Not only was the staff depleted by the loss of these two officers, but no appointment of an Investigating Officer had been made following the appointment in December, 1948, of one of the Investigating Officers as Acting-Secretary. Another member of the staff who was the Research Officer had been on extended sick-leave since 11th October, 1948, and his position had not been filled. The Commission had on its staff at the commencement of the year under review only two male members—an Investigating Officer and a male clerk —together with a female clerk and two typistes. At this particular period the Commission was finalizing its first major inquiry concerning Christchurch metropolitan local government, and was about to commence one of its most difficult inquiries concerning the future local government of the Porirua Basin. Although these staff depletions had occurred, the work of the Commission continued without delay. On the 16th June, 1949, the remaining Investigating Officer was appointed Secretary to the Commission. Two new Investigating Officers were appointed on the 21st June, 1949, and the Ist August, 1949, respectively, and the Research Officer's position was filled on the 25th October, 1949. As the Commission was desirous of proceeding with its investigations into the functions and districts of local authorities in the Auckland metropolitan area as well as in the North Shore area, it had to have recourse to the appointment as from the 21st April, 1949, of a temporary Investigating Officer stationed at Auckland. During the year under review, other changes have taken place in the personnel of the staff of the Commission, and one of the Investigating Officers appointed during the year has since severed his connection with the Public Service. The temporary Investigating Officer completed the extensive preliminary investigations at Auckland ir> a very, capable maimer, and has since been seconded to another Department. The volume of work which was undertaken by the staff throughout the year under most difficult circumstances has involved their working excessive hours, and a considerable and increasing strain on the personnel when the Commission was proceeding with certain of its major investigations.
H—2B
54
We desire to express our appreciation for the loyal and 1 capable service which has beer rendered to us at all times by the Secretary and other members of the staff during a most difficult year, but would point out that although it has been possible for the Commission to be fully engaged on all the matters which have been referred to it, it is clear that the staff of the Commission cannot continue to. satisfactorily carry out the necessary work in the face of such difficulties as have been experienced during the past year unless its numerical strength is increased. We regard the administrative requirements in connection with our activities as being of the 1 utmost importance to the success of the Commission's operations, and have therefore considered it desirable to make reference to the staffing position during the year under review. XX. CONCLUSION The number of matters to which reference has been made in this report indicates the rapid growth which has taken place in the work of the Commission. The proposals which are submitted to it in the form of requests are numerous, but form only a small portion of the work of major reorganization of local government which we consider should be progressively undertaken. We are satisfied that there is a rapidly growing public interest in local government matters throughout the country, as is evidenced by the number of requests made to the Commission, and the inquiries made concerning the activities of the Commission by local authorities and the public generally. The growth of public interest has, in our opinion, been stimulated by the holding of public inquiries, the widespread notifications which are made concerning these inquiries, and the publicity which the press and the National Journal dealing with local government matters which is circulated throughout the Dominion has given to the activities of the Commission. We desire to express our appreciation to the press and the National Journal, to which reference has been made. We also desire to refer to the co-operation which has been received from both members and officers of local governing authorities throughout the Dominion. The relationship between the Commission and the Department of Internal Affairs, which undertakes the administrative aspects of local government, has been most helpful at all times. The co-operation extended to us by other Government Departments has been of considerable value, and we pay the highest tribute to the assistance these Departments have promptly given to the Commission not only in connection with public inquiries, but also in relation to general administrative matters connected with our activities. In concluding this, our third annual report, we would refer finally to the general objective in carrying out the responsibilities which have been assigned to us. This objective—the reorganization of local government in New Zealand —has been the subject of constant discussion since before the commencement of this century, and with the passing of legislation some four years ago to enable this objective to- be achieved, we are convinced that if we receive the co-operation and practical assistance of all those interests associated with local government, as well as of the public generally, we will be able to satisfactorily discharge the functions and duties assigned to us. I. J. Goldstine, Judge, Chairman. J. W. Andrews, Commissioner. W. C. E. George, Commissioner. G. A. Monk, Commissioner. A. E. N. Wilkins, Secretary. April, 1950.
55
H—2B
APPENDIX
— Date Provisional Scheme Issued. Date Final Scheme Issued. Date Order in Council Gazetted. VI. Matters Dealt With Involving Public | Inquiries in Pursuance of Section 14 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 Alteration of Boundaries : Local Authorities' Districts (i) Christchurch City, Heathcote County, Halswell 18/5/49 21/9/49 County, Paparua County, and Waimairi (innnt.v (ii) vUUIl 1/V Lyttelton Borough : Mount Herbert County 18/5/49 31/8/49 22/12/49 (iii) Palmerston North City: Kairanga County 5/9/49 8/12/49 (iv) Papatoetoe Borough Manukau County 30/9/49 27/2/50 16/3/50 (V) Tauranga Borough : Tauranga County 17/5/49 30/6/49 (vi) Rotorua County : Taupo County 17/5/49 16/3/50 (vii) Matamata County : Taupo County 11/5/49 16/3/50 (viii) Matamata County : Rotorua County 12/5/49 16/3/50 (ix) Tauranga County : Rotorua County 17/5/49 16/3/50 (x) Wellington City : Makara County 12/i2/49 (xx) Paparua County : Eyre County 23/12/49 (xii) Malvern County : Paparua County 23/12/49 (xiii) Ellesmere County : Selwyn County 23/12/49 (xiv) Whakatane County : Opotiki County 30/6/49 (xv) Nelson City : Waimea County 5/4/49 3/11/49 (xvi) Whangarei Borough : Whangarei County .. 28/4/49 (xvii) Rotorua County : Rotorua Borough 11/5/49 25/8/49 (xviii) Redwood Rabbit District 13/4/49 VII. Matters Dealt With Not Involving Public Inquiries and Action Taken in Pursuance of Section 24 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 Alteration of Boundaries : Local Authorities' 1 Districts (i) Whakatane Borough : Whakatane County .. 15/9/49 28/10/49 23/3/50 (ii) Waipa County : Raglan County 6/10/49 29/11/49 23/3/50 (iii) Kaikoura River District 15/9/49 20/12/49 23/3/50 (iv) Grey and Buller Electric-power Districts Referred for action under section 6 of Electricpower Boards Act, 1925 (v) Waitaki Electric-power District Ditto .. 30/3/50 (vi) Thames Valley and Tauranga Electric-power ,, 9/3/50 Districts (vii) Kokonga-Tiroiti Rabbit District Referred for action under 19/5/49 section 29, Rabbit Nuisance Amendment Act, 1947 (viii) Pongakawa Rabbit District Ditto .. 16/6/49 (ix) Glencoe Rabbit District 15/9/49 (x) Upper Waihao Rabbit District 8/9/49 (xi) Manuherikia Rabbit District 25/8/49 (xii) Kihikihi Rabbit District 25/8/49 (xiii) Orepuki Rabbit District 8/9/49 (xiv) Taieri Ridge Rabbit District 27/10/49 (XV) Glenorchy Rabbit District 22/12/49 (xvi) Parnassus Rabbit District 22/12/49 (xvii) Motunau Rabbit District 9/2/50 (xviii) Kokonga-Tiroiti Rabbit District 16/3/50 (xix) Wairau Rabbit District Referred for action under 30/3/50 section 29 (1) (b), Rabbit Nuisance Amendment Act, 1947 (XX) Ararimu Rabbit District .. Referred for action under section 29, Rabbit Nuisance Amendment Act, 1947. (xxi) Parnassus Rabbit District Ditto .. 30/3/50 (xxii) Hurunui Rabbit District »» 15/9/49
H—2B
56
APPENDIX —continued
— Date Provisional Scheme Issued. Date Final Scheme Issued. Date Order in Council Gazetted. VIII. Union and Merger of Districts : Involving Public Inquiries in Pursuance of Section 14 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 Local Authorities' Districts (i) Christchurch City : Riccarton Borough (ii) Wellington City : Johnsonville Town District (iii) Ellesmere County : Southbridge Town District (iv) Ellesmere, Halswell, Heathcote, Paparua, Springs, and Waimairi Counties (v) Ashley, Eyre, Kowai, Oxford, and Rangiora Counties (vi) Akaroa, Mount Herbert, and Wairewa Counties (vii) Malvern, Selwyn, and Tawera Counties (viii) Nelson City : Tahunanui Town District (ix) Bay of Islands, Kaipara, Mangonui Whangarei, Hokianga, and Whangaroa Hospital Districts 1 18/5/49 12/12/49 23/12/49 23/12/49 23/12/49 23/12/49 23/12/49 21/9/49 5/4/49 16/3/50 30/3/50 IX. Abolition of Districts : Involving a Public Inquiry in Pursuance of Secton 14 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 Local Authorities' Districts (i) Christchurch Drainage District (ii) Christchurch Tramway District 18/5/49 18/5/49 21/9/49 21/9/49 X. Abolition of Districts : Not Involving Public Inquiries and Action Taken in Pursuance of Section 24 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 Local Authorities' Districts (i) Ahikouka River District (ii) Kahutara River District (iii) South Wairarapa River District (iv) Te Ore Ore River District (v) Waiohine River District 4/1/50 4/1/50 4/1/50 4/1/50 4/1/50 3/3/50 3/3/50 3/3/50 3/3/50 3/3/50 23/3/50 23/3/50 23/3/50 23/3/50 23/3/50 XI. Functions Transferred : Involving a Public Inquiry in Pursuance of Section 14 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 Local Authorities Ashley, Eyre, Kowai, Oxford, and Rangiora County Councils: Waimakariri-Ashley Water Supply Board 23/12/49 •• XII. Functions Transferred : Not Involving a Public Inquiry and Action Taken in Pursuance of Section 24 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 Local Authorities Kaituna River Board : Tumu Kaituna and Te Puke Drainage Boards 20/12/49 1/3/50 30/3/50 XIII. Constitution of District : Involving a Public Inquiry in Pursuance of Section 14 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 Independent Town District: Tawa Flat - Linden localities in Makara County 12/12/49
57
H—2B
APPENDIX —continued
— Bate Provisional Scheme Issued. Date Final Scheme Issued. Date Order in Council Gazetted. XIV. Constitution or Districts : Not Involving Public Inquiries and Action Taken in Pursuance of Section 24 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 (i) Tuapeka Rabbit District 27/3/50 (ii) Te Kuiti Fire District 7/4/49 (iii) Eastbourne Fire District 18/7/49 1/9/49 XV. Change of Status : Not Involving a Public Inquiry and Action Taken in Pursuance of Section 24 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 Runanga Urban Fire District Referred for action under 30/3/50 section 18 (4), Fire Services Act, 1949 XVII. Miscellaneous : Not Involving Public Inquiries and Action Taken in Pursuance of Section 24 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 (a) Constitution of Districts — (i) Bulls : Secondary Urban Fire District Referred for action under 30/3/50 section 18 (4), Fire Services Act, 1949 (ii) Rawene : Secondary Urban Fire District .. Ditto .. 30/3/50 (iii) Cnlverden : Secondary Urban Fire District .. „ 30/3/50 (iv) Murchison : Secondary Urban Fire District .. „ 30/3/50 (v) Ranfurly : Secondary Urban Fire District .. „ 30/3/50 (vi) Titirangi: Secondary Urban Fire District .. „ 30/3/50 (vii) Kaharoa Rabbit District .. Referred for action under section . 29, Rabbit Nuisance Amendment Act, 1947 (viii) Glenorchy Rabbit District Ditto .. 2/6/49 (ix) Waihaorunga Rabbit District ,, 2/6/49 (x) Waitaki Rabbit District „ 28/7/49 (xi) Aria Rabbit District „ 1/9/49 (xii) Cardrona Rabbit District.. „ 21/7/49 (xiii) Lindis Rabbit District ,, 28/7/49 (xiv) Mataikona Rabbit District „ 28/7/49 (xv) Benmore Rabbit District .. „ 25/8/49 (xvi) Kawarau Rabbit District ,, 4/8/49 (xvii) Strath-Taieri Rabbit District ,, 11/8/49 (xviii) Albury Rabbit District „ 29/9/49 (xix) Four Peaks Rabbit District „ 25/8/49 (xx) Hawea Rabbit District „ 25/8/49 (xxi) Earnscleugh Rabbit District „ .. .. .. 25/8/49 (xxii) Forks Rabbit District ,, 15/9/49 (xxiii) Hakataramea Valley Rabbit District „ 2/6/49 (xxiv) Hanmer Rabbit District .. „ 15/9/49 (xxv) Pahau Rabbit District „ 15/9/49 (xxvi) Culverden Rabbit District ,, 15/9/49 (xxvii) Amuri Rabbit District „ 15/9/49 (xxviii) Waitohi Rabbit District .. „ 15/9/49 (xxix) Cheviot Rabbit District „ .. .. ' .. 15/9/49 (xxx) Maruia Rabbit District ,, 29/9/49 (xxxi) Lillburn Rabbit District 22/9/49 (xxxii) Cromwell Rabbit District ,, 3/11/49 (xxxiii) Wairaki Rabbit District 27/10/49 (xxxiv) Ashley Rabbit District 'iv 2/3/50 (xxxv) Waimahaka Rabbit District 9/3/50
H—2B
58
APPENDIX —continued
Approximate Cost of Paper.—Preparation, not given ; printing (1,444 copies), £l4O.
By Authority: R. E. Owen, Government Printer, Wellington. —1950, Price Is. 3d.)
— ( j Date Provisional Scheme Issued. Date Final Scheme Issued. Date Order in Council Gazetted. XVII. Miscellaneous —continued (xxxvi) Poutu Rabbit District .. 1 Referred for action under 30/3/50 section 29, Rabbit 1 Nuisance Amendment Act, 1947 (xxxvii) Dunstan Rabbit District Ditto .. 30/3/50 (xxxviii) Cairnhill Rabbit District „ 25/8/49 (xxxix) Downs Rabbit District Referred for action under section 30, Rabbit Nuisance Amendment Act, 1947 (xl) Blackstone Rabbit District Dicto .. (xli) Waihopai Rabbit District 13/4/49 (b) Union of Districts : Not involving Public Inquiries and Action Taken in Pursuance of Section 24 of the Local Government Commission Act, 1946 (i) Harapepe and Pirongia Rabbit Districts .. Referred for action under 19/5/49 section 28, Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1928 (ii) fLiliikihi, Hairini. Mangapiko, and Pukeatua Ditto .. 29/9/49 Rabbit Districts
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1950-I.2.3.2.36
Bibliographic details
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION (REPORT OF THE) FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH, 1950, Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1950 Session I, H-28
Word Count
34,406LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION (REPORT OF THE) FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH, 1950 Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1950 Session I, H-28
Using This Item
Copyright in the Appendices of the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHRs) may be held by:
• the Clerk of the House of Representatives
• third parties (which may include government agencies, political parties, or people that have made submissions or others).
In some cases
• no copyright may exist (such as Government bills, parliamentary debates and reports of select committees), or
• copyright may have expired (including Crown copyright in works published before 1 January 1945).
Clerk of the House of Representatives
Where the Clerk of the House of Representatives owns copyright in the AJHRs, the Clerk has licensed that copyright under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0). This means you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the material, as long as you attribute it to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and abide by the other licence terms.
Third party copyright
If the copyright is held by third parties, the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the National Library cannot grant permission to reproduce or otherwise use material. It is your responsibility to make sure you have permission to re-use this content from the copyright holder.
If you are unsure if copyright in an item is held by a third party, please contact us for assistance at paperspast@natlib.govt.nz
No copyright
If there is no copyright, or if copyright has expired in any material in the AJHRs, there are no copyright restrictions on your use of that material.
We ask that you acknowledge the National Library as the source of the information. If the material is republished online, we would appreciate a link to where you found the information on this site.