Local Government Reform

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 21991, 15 January 1937, Page 10

Local Government Reform

The Minister for Internal Affairs, the Hon. W. E. Parry, announces that he has discussed with several North Island local bodies the Local Government (Amalgamation Schemes) Bill, introduced in the House of Representatives at the end of last session, and is "delighted with "the spirit of co-operation" he has encountered. It is not easy to share the Minister's satisfaction. Local bodies are pleased with the bill for a very obvious reason. They have realised for several years that local government reform is inevitable, and their fear has been that reform would involve a drastic simplification of local administrative machinery. Mr Parry's bill lets them down lightly. The initiative in framing amalgamation schemes will rest with local bodies and groups of local bodies; power boards and hospital boards are outside the scope of the bill; there are endless possibilities of delay and backstairs negotiation; and, what is particularly regrettable, the Minister has tied his hands by giving an assurance that there will be "no dictation." His experience with acclimatisation societies should convince him that there is no painless method of reforming local government. Local bodies will willingly enough admit in general terms the need for amalgamations. But when it comes to devising schemes of amalgamation, each local jurisdiction will fight stubbornly to retain its identity. " It is all very well to talk " about local initiative," says a writer in "Board and Council," discussing the bill, "but "in the past local initiative has always been "exercised in favour of the status quo. The "present provisions of the Municipal Corpora"tions Act, and the simpler provisions of the " Counties Act, are practically ineffective when " it comes to a problem of amalgamation of " local authorities." It seems reasonable to ask that the bill should be submitted for criticism and suggestions, not to local authorities only, but also to organisations which have an interest in local government. After all, those who use local services and pay for them deserve first consideration. What local authorities think about local government reform will be interesting and occasionally helpful; it will also be biased. If the,. Minister asks Farmers' -TUnions,

Chambers of Commerce, and various professional organisations for opinions on his bill, he will not feel so well satisfied with it as he does now. And those opinions will be a better index to the attitude of the country as a whole to this question than the eager approval of local authorities.