The Press FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1937. County Councils and Amalgamation

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22182, 27 August 1937, Page 10

The Press FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1937. County Councils and Amalgamation

The attitude of the New Zealand Counties Association to local government reform has always been difficult to understand. The association has more than orice declared that it supports county amalgamations “ on principle but this support has been so much hedged about by qualifications that it is of little value to the Government or the Minister for Internal Affairs. Indeed, the debate on this subject at the association’s conference in Wellington on Wednesday revealed so much frank opposition to any change in the status quo, and so much patent disingenuousness, that the association must be suspected of supporting amalgamations from expediency rather than conviction. After all. equivocal support is much npre dangerous to a cause than straight-out opposition. The association is now asking that the onus of proving the value of any particular amalgamation scheme shall rest with the Government and not with the local bodies concerned and, further, that the Local Government (Amalgamations) Bill be held up until there has been a general investigation into the whole problem of local government in New Zealand. The first request is less reasonable than it sounds. The conference affirms that the test of the value of a proposed amalgamation should be whether it will secure “ a reduction in expenditure “ and/or increased efficiency.” Now although it is certain that in the long run the creation of larger local government areas and a reduction in the number of authorities would eventually reduce administrative costs, it is unlikely that in any given area the immediate result of amalgamation would be a reduction in rates. Moreover, “ efficiency ” is a difficult term to invest with a precise meaning. If, therefore, the onus of proving the value of an amalgamation were thrown on the Government, the door would be opened to endless and inconclusive arguments. The second request would be reasonable if the political factor could be ignored and if it could be assumed that, after the investigation had been completed, the county councils would withdraw their objections to amalgamations. “ The Press ” has always urged that local government reform should be preceded by a full inquiry into local government, preferably by a Royal Commission. And it is undoubtedly desirable that such an inquiry should be put in hand immediately. But the withdrawal of the Local Government (Amalgamations) Bill, defective as it is in many respects, is another question. There is a very general feeling that, if local government reform is shelved in the coming session, nothing more will be heard of it for several years. On the whole, therefore, it is probably better* that the Minister should proceed with his bill. Nevertheless, he would be well advised to pay careful attention to some of the criticisms voiced at the conference on Wednesday and particularly to the very able speech of Mr C, J. Talbot, the president of the Counties Association. Mr Talbot’s criticisms carry weight if only because, unlike a majority of the delegates, he was a sincere advocate of amalgamations. His main point is one that has been made many times in these columns, the point that the amalgamation schemes so far put forward are too vague to iorm the basis of profitable discussions. Mr Talbot enumerates a long list of questions which the Minister has left undecided and which the county councils, for obvious reasons, do not desire to decide for themselves. The Minister has made an unimpressive beginning with his programme of reform; but if he will recognise the need for more searching investigation into local government problems and for working out his programme in greater detail he may yet retrieve the situation.