Amalgamation of Local Bodies

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 58, 1 December 1937, Page 3

Amalgamation of Local Bodies

-Prega Agaocifttion 1

FOR AND AGAINST '» ia Committee on Bill Hears Evidence EMPLOYEES' FEARS

(Bj Telearraoh-

j WELLINGTON Last Night. ! ' When the Local Government! ;( Amalgamation Schemes) Bill Commit-', tee met this morning to commence taking evidence on the Bill, arguments were put forward in support of the coordination of local bodies under th( Town Planning Act, 1929, and th« Municipal Association of New Zealand (Mr. - T. Jordan) supported botl regional planning and amalgamation, The association, ho said, had made no objection to the Bill at the last conference, and his suggestion that the Town Planning Act should be put into operation to facilitate the proposals of the Bill had been received without any opposition. There was opposition to amalgamation from the employees of local bodies who feared it would mean loss of employment, he said, and ' that - fear should be removed. The amalgamation of boroughs was opposed by the representative of the Sumner Borough Council. The Speaker of the House of Repre-i sentatives (the Hon. W. E. Barnard)j presided and other members of the sommittee present were the Mink-ter of [nternal Affairs (the Hon. W. E. Parry) the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, Messrs. W. T. Armstrong, H. G. Dickie, H. S. S. Kyle, H. M. Rushworth, J. Hargest, J. W. Munro,"J. Robertson, J. Thorn, 'and C. M. Williams. The first witness was the president of the Municipal Association of New Zealand (Mr. T. Jordan, Mayor of Masterton), who said he had been connected with local body activities foi many years, having been on the executive of the association for ten years and president for two years. The membership of the Municipal Association was about 150, and a circular letter sent to these had drawn replies from 37. In additioh, a group of local bodies in Taranaki and another group in Auckland would make separate representations. The general opinion was one of opposition to the compulsory nature of the amalgamation proposed. A survey was asked for before amalgamation was undertaken. It was held by some that interests in county councils and town boards were so varied that amalgamation would not be advisable. It was also felt that amalgamation should not be undertaken unless such amalgamation would lead to a saving in costs. •Attttude of Petone Commenting on the opinions of local bodies, Mr. Jordan said the Petone Borough Council asked for a poll, objected to the onus of proof being placed on the objector to amalgamation, and also commented on a number of points in the Bill. Mr. Jordan said he thought he was justified in aaying that the associatiou as a whole definitely approved the principle of the Bill, but he thought hospital boards, harbour boards, etc., should have been included for the rationalisation of local body government. He considered the compulsory powers had some justification. ■ In one ease t motion to discuss the question with another 'local body had been -defeated on the casting vote of the Mayor. Mr. J. Campbell, on behalf of the Hawera, Waitara, Eltham and Inglewood Borough Councils and the Kaponga, Manaia and Normanby town districts, said he had not come either to praise the Bill or condemn it. The bodies he reprcsented thought there ciust be justification for it, but wished to see some provisions written in which they thought necessary. They thought tvhenever objections were m#.de to an amalgamation proposal the project should go to a commission, not- only when there were what the Minister thought material objections, as the Bill provided. A majority should be sufficient in the appointment of commissioners instead of unanimity being reing required. The main causes of their apprehension, however, were the clauses which said a borough or town district could be compelled to amalgamate with a county within which it was situa'ted. Normanby, for instance, would be barshly treated because it was not in debt. He did not worry at the thought of being dispossessed and thought nobody clse would have that feeling, but he favoured the taking of polls. Mr. J. Thorn. who was in the chair in the afternoon when Mr. Campbell spoke, suggested that the Bill provided for the Minister to appoint a commisssion when local bodies were not unanimous because otherwise minorities might not get representation. Hon. W. E. Patry said that was th.9 reason for the clause being drafted that way. Asked by Mr. J. Hargest why a place like Normanby should object to being absorbed by a county, Mr. Campbell said it was not because of lack of community of interest but because the town outlook and the county. outlook were differeut. Ho entirely disagree.d with Mr. Jordan that town and country interests could function together efficiently. "We have every umenity in Hawera and we are the lowest-rated town of the class in Taranaki." he.said. "We would definitely resist any suggestion that New Plymouth should control us." Mr. Parry remarked that there were towns adiriinistered in creditable manner by counties. It was not intended that the Bill should apply to large boroughs and those progressing, but tne Government did think a lot of small town districts could be administered better. by counties. He did not desire the Minister to have any outstanding | *« iop£ *» &* Bill Wftdk;

He asked what would be said if the Bill were to contain a clause limiting amalgamations to bodies of less than a certain population. Mr. Campbell replied that there would still be objections from progressive bodies. To-morrow evidence will be given by Mr. J. O'Shea on behalf of the Muni- - sipal Association and the Wellington City Council, Mr E. P. Mornian on behalf of. Ihe Wellington City Council and by fepresentatives of the Christchurch City ouncil and Now Brighton Borough Council. . ,