GRIM STATUTORY JEST

Chronicle (Levin), 9 October 1946, Page 7

GRIM STATUTORY JEST

-Press Association

Mr. Polson Attacks Local Government Bill

Bv Teleoravh—

WELLINGTON, Oct. 8. Mr. W. J. Polson (Stratford) speaking in the House of Representatives to the report of tlie Local Bills Commitee on the Local Government Commission Bill whicli the Committee Iiad reported back with amendments, said Opposition members liad been led up the garden path by the Committee. The Bill had been referred back to tlie Committee ostensibly to make a simple amendment which niight equally well have been rnade during the committee stage of the discussion in the whole House. Members found, however, wken the Committee met, that the real purpose was to destroy all the work which the Committee had previously done upon the Bill and to override the Committee 's earliei decisions. Principles which had been agreed to unanimously both by the Local Bills Committee and by the Local Government Committee which travelled all over the Doininion, vvere abandoned. £t had been abundaiftly clear that some mysterious power was forcing the Government to reverse the decisions to which it had previously agreed. The point at issue, said Mr. Polson, was that of a poll to be taken to ratify decisions ma'de by the Local Government Commission, which tlie Bill souglit to establish. The Bill, as now amended, uieant, that lialf a dozen ratepayers could go to a poll on a wet day and up set alJ the good work that the Commission liad done. Tlie earlier decision was f.iat the poll to give eft'ect to tlie Commission 's decisions, must be voted upon by at least fifty per cent of the electors which ineant that the decision of the Commission could not be upset by fewer than 2(3 per cent of tlie electors. Mr. Polson said this clause, as it formerly stood, was reasonable enough and was unanimously agreed to but when the Bill was referred back to the Committee, the Minister and his colleagues inexplicably declared that the requirement for at least 50 per cent of the elec tors to vote was undemocratic. This stood in strange contrast to the Bill on similar line's proposed by the Minister as long ago as 1936 when the Minister suggested that the Commission should have power to effect its decisions irrespective of electors' opinions. Now that the House had gone so far as to give qualified effect to the Minister 's propos als, the Minister himself said it was undemocratic to require a minimum vote

of 50 per cent. Another coutention of the Government members of the Committee had been that on this aspect of the pill local authorities liad not been sufticiently consulted. That came well from a Government which proceeded with tlie Local Polls and Elcctions Amendnieni Bill despitc the united opposition of local bodies throughout the country. Mr. Polson declared that the changes the Government now proposed wcre oue of the griuimest statutory jests ever to come before the House. Mr. Praser: Not grim, surely? Mr. Polson said the jest was certainly a grim one. The Minister was tearing up the work of the committee and destroying his own reputation. What was the real reason benind the Govern ment's action? There had been general agreement on some reform of local body affairs and now the Government was destroying what had b.een agreed upon. Mr. Polson said he had not heard of one local hody protesting against the provision requiring the poll to be voted upon by at least 50 per cent of the elec tors to give effect to the Commission 's decisions. It was a mystery to him why Government members had turned a com plete somersault and he appealed to thi Prime Minister to investigate the rea son. Mr. Fraser asked what was the propei tlnng to do in regard to 'tliose resideutiof areas which the Commission proposed to amalgamate? There was no democ racy in a situation, wliere if 50 per cen: of tlie electors voted and 49 per cent o. them were against amalgamation, the one percent should dominate and th« silenee of the other fifty per cent taken as consenting votes. Both sides of titi House would vote against a prospai whereby the dead inass of tlie people who did not vote could swing the resull of a poll. He said it would be bettei to abandon tlie first proposal altogether After further debate Mr. 1). W. Cole man (Gisborne) moved that the report lie upon the table. Hon. W. E. Parry, moving the Bill Y committal, said everv previous Govern ment, while reeognising tlie need for local body reform, had dropped tlie issue like "a liot sxiud". Mr. Parry said he liimself had travelled to everv part of tlie Dominion consulting with local bodies in an eft'ort to obtain some agreed method of initiating reform. He had tried to keep politics out of the question altogether. ' Mr. W. H. Gillespie (Hurunui): You it to have stuclc to your guns. Ir. Parry said it would be wrong to ld a Bill up. It should be passed as .t now stood as the means of initiating some worthwhile reforms by enabling the Commission to be set up and starl its work. Even if there were no agree ment on all aspects of the Commission it should be allowed to function and the legislation could be improved upon as experience sliowed it to be necessary. Mr. Polson said he wanted to see sooie machinery established which would prevent the valuable work of the Commission being destroy ed by what he had termed a frivolous poll. If the Government would agree to the figure of 25 per cent of electors it would safeguard the position to some extent. It niight be a eompromise but lie would be prepared to accept it. If it were left to a frivolous poll it would mean that it had been useless setting up the Commission. The measure would occasion profound disappointment to local bodies, said Mr. irolson, who described the Bill as "fac ing both ways." The Bill would go on the Statute Book as a monument to ministerial sophistry. There could be ouly oue hope — that iu the uear f utiire a new Government could improve the Bill. Mr. W. T. And orton (Edon) said that

what had been recommended was never considered as the final meaiis of ap proach to perfect local Government. He (iid not think that what was done in this Bill would alter the main idea which the committee had in its report. If it was desired to reorganise local government in this country that could only be done if an endeavour were made to ineet the wishes and desires of those who took a real interest in local government Mr. W. Smitli (Bay of Islands) «aid it should not be made too easy to \ f set decisions of a Commission which ■epresented both rural and urban local bodies. The best that could be said ot the Bill was that it was very anaemic and better than nothing. He regretted that party politics had now come into tlie matter. Mr. J. N. Massey (Franklin) said altliough there was unanimous agreement among members of the Local Bodies Committee on tlie matter now at stake; it was surprising to see reverse action in tlie House. Everyone was asking the reason for this change. Mr. Parry: What do you suggest? Mr. Massey said it was obvious that Government members were not caring too niucli for local bodies, only about their own since there was an eleetion in the near future. Members of the Government had made up their minds for the timo being that the Bill must be thrown overboard. Mr. R. McKeen (Wellington South) said local body administration in New Zealand was appalling. There were 700 local bodies administering to a popula tion of little more than 1,500,000. Wel lington City Council with 16 members did what Auckland did with 284 members of local bodies. If it were left to the local bodies themselves - to amalga mate was it imagined by any rnember of the House that tliey would do so in a reasonable time? The Bill was read a second time and the committal stages were deferred until later in the sitting.