The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 1954. County Government Reform

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27303, 20 March 1954, Page 6

The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 1954. County Government Reform

The ratepayers of North Canterbury counties should be greatly encouraged by the interest shown in the reform of rural local government at the annual meeting of Ward 11 of the New Zealand Counties’ Association yesterday. There are not many persons with knowledge and experience of rural local government who will deny the need for substantial changes in the structure of rural local government. Indeed, the need has been recognised ever since the process of subdivision of the original counties ended before the Great War; but little' has come from the various efforts at reform which have been made over the years. Nowhere is the need for reform greater than in the North Canterbury district, as the Select Committee of the House of Representatives acknowledged in 1944. This committee, representative of the members most experienced in local government on both sides of the House, recorded its conviction that in many areas there are more county councils than are necessary for the work they have to do, with unnecessary duplication of staffs and administration. And the committee added that this was “ particularly the case in North “Canterbury, where there are a “ number of diminutive counties ”.

But for a variety of reasons the Local Government Commission, which W’as the direct outcome of the Select Committee’s long and patient investigation, has not been able to carry out the function assigned to it by the Legislature of bringing about necessary reforms by judicial processes; and the amending legislation introduced in last year's session of Parliament holds out little promise of meeting the need, which grows more pressing every year. This is the background of the present move, which is not confined to North Canterbury, to bring about a more efficient organisation of county government by mutual arrangement among the local, bodies concerned. The president of the New Zealand Counties’ Association (Mr W. A. Lee) expressed the very strong feelings of the association’s executive on this subject in his report to the annual meeting of the Counties’ Association last year.

As there does not appear to be much chance under the proposed bill of the Local Government Commission, of its ■ own volition, bringing about necessary reforms to strengthen local government (said Mr Leel, your executive considers that the time has arrived when a number of our own county councils should voluntarily consider amongst themselves the question of amalgamation, not only in the interests of their ratepayers, residents, and staff, but also in the interests of a strong, sound system of rural local government throughout the whole country. The executive is not attempting to force amalgamation on these county councils, but is strongly of the opinion that they should give serious thought and consideration to this important aspect of county government without being unduly restricted 14 such considerations by a feeling of parochialism, a feeling that may be more imaginary than real. Without a realistic effort on our part to strengthen rural local government, many of our best intentions may be frustrated.

The compelling arguments for rural local government by amalgamation were put to the ward-' conference of North Canterbury county councils yesterday by Mr Lee; and it seems that the separate county councils have undertaken to consider amalgamation proposals and to report progress to a later meeting of the ward. County residents and ratepayers should not be _ content with a leisurely attack on this urgent and important problem. The ’ whole history of local government reform in New Zealand is a warning that the interests of the public in efficient local government are all too frequently subordinated to parochialism, local prejudices and jealousies, and sometimes to personal ambitions. Sometimes they are thwarted by nothing more substantial than a strong objection to any kind of change. This may be seen, perhaps, in the remit from the Heathcote County Council, whose area is acknowledged now to be the “ irreducible limit ”, which would prohibit any but agreed boundary changes at intervals of less than 10 years (a proposition, incidentally, which sits most strangely beside the counties’ fprrner insistence on the right of the citizen to choose his own form of local government). The present move for the voluntary reorganisation of county districts has, an advantage which earlier reform movements lacked. With the rationalisation of the national reading system, government subsidies to local bodies will be related much more precisely to their needs and responsibilities. There will not, therefore, be so iqpch reason for the ratepayers of welldeveloped districts to fear that they will be required to pay a disproportionate share of the cost of development in neighbouring areas. On the other hand, the economies which will be possible with the strengthening of the units of local government should appeal to everybody. Reform is clearly in the interest of those who live in the counties; and they have every reason to spur their elected representatives to the task.

vince the American people that they can prune the defence budget—and reduce taxation—without any sacrifice of military security. This policy, dignified by the President’s claim that “the cost of armaments “ becomes less oppressive as we near “ our defence goals; yet we are “ militarily stronger every day or, in the Pentagon vernacular, “ a “ bigger bang for a buck ’’—has obvious limitations which might in certain circumstances become serious weaknesses. This is the policy of relying more upon the deterrent power of massive retaliation with atomic bombs and less upon the size and strategic distribution of ground forces. There have been many competent critics of the policy to point out that the most massive atomic weapons, and the aircraft to deliver them, are useless to meet the kind of threat to American security which was posed by the aggression in Korea in 1950. Only ground troops on the spot, or readily available, could serve the purpose; and they were mobilised in the United States and in other countries of the United Nations only at the cost* of immense effort—-and only just in time. Consequently, in America and in the-countries of the North Atlantic alliance, there has been a very real fear that the American policy of disengagement and. withdrawal, already carried some appreciable distance in Asia, would before long be applied also in Europe, leaving both continents dependent mainly upon their own military resources backed by the prolnise, expressed or implied, of American long-range bombing. Mr Dulles’s statement in mid-January did nothing to allay this fear. On the contrary, his reference to a “basic decision” to “depend “ primarily upon a great capacity to “retaliate, instantly, by means and “at places of our choosing”, was bound to suggest to America’s allies the possibility of their becoming involved, against their will, and without their consent, in an atomic w.ar. Canada’s Minister of External Affairs (Mr Lester Pearson) gave clear expression to this fear when he said this week that the allies of the United States expect .to be consulted about this new concept of American defence. To his credit, and to the credit of President. Eisenhower’s Government, Mr Dulles has hastened to reply. Reassuring as his statement is to America’s allies, it is bound to shatter some fond illusions in the United States. The “cornerstone” of American military and diplomatic policy, said Mr Dulles, is the system of alliances with other free nations—not blind reliance on atomic weapons. Alliances of this kind can be made effective to meet a potential* military threat only by the deployment of sufficient military force in the threatened areas. So much is acknowledged hy Mr Dulles in his several references to the Importance of “ local ” defence forces—which it} this context means defence forces on the spot, as opposed to reserves at home in the United States. Walter Millis, the military correspondent of the “ New “York Herald, Tribune”, who has been one of the sharpest critics of the policy of retrenchment—or rather of the political pretence that retrenchment can increase military security—has pointed out that “ the “ best way to lose allies is to make “it clear that you no longer intend “to provide them with the means “of local defence ”. Mr Dulles’s statement is the first official recognition that the policy—naturally very attractive to .politicians and to taxpayers—of cutting down overseas commitments and bringing home the divisions in Asia and Europe cannot be carried very fa? in the present state of international relations. Reliance on the threat of atomic bombing is in fact incompatible with a policy of alliances and collective security; and it is useful to have this recognised •explicitly by the United States Government.