The Dominion WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1929. LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 183, 1 May 1929, Page 10

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1929. LOCAL GOVERNMENT

From one point of view, the frequency of our local government elections may not be altogether in the interests of efficiency. They may be apt, for example, to disturb the continuity of policy. It has been suggested more than once that this objection might, be met by a system under which a certain proportion of the municipal councillors, and members of other local bodies, would retire in rotation. On the other hand, public interest in the work of local bodies is apt to be keener and more concentrated at election times. In the interval between elections various voluntary groups, such as the Civic League and the Ratepayers’ Associations, maintain a watchful supervision, in the interests of the citizens, over the activities of the elected bodies. It is doubtful, however, whether the general body of citizens takes more than a passing interest in the doings of these bodies, except where their personal interests are concerned. Election time is, or should be, an occasion for a general awakening of the public curiosity regarding what has been done and what it is proposed to do. It is, also, the one opportunity afforded the electors for making the most effective protest possible against representatives who may have failed them, for they can then be turned out of office. Civic government in Sydney, it may be recalled, became so degenerate in efficiency and responsibility that public opinion, finally roused to action, turned the whole council out of office and installed commissioners. Sydney’s revolution was a popular reaction against Labour-Socialist methods in municipal government. This country is fortunately free from really serious maladministration on the part of its local bodies. It does not follow, however, that it has altogether escaped the consequences of errors in. policy and inefficiency in administration. In so far as the representatives ejected to the local bodies are concerned, the public’s responsibility is a general one. The interests of ratepayers and those who do not pay rates, but who have a municipal franchise, are merged. The interest of the ratepayers in those who are to represent them is likely to be much keener, because their contribution to the cost of local government is a direct payment. The others, in common with the ratepayers, pay indirectly for the various services provided. With these others, as is very often the case when payments are made indirectly, interest in the question of whether value is being received tends to become more or less perfunctory. Loan proposals are the particular concern of the ratepayers, for it is they who have to provide the interest. This should not mean that other citizens are in a sense absolved from the obligation of carefully scrutinising local body enterprises under this head. In the end the purpose of these undertakings is for the general interest. Any error of policy to which a section of the public may be induced to assent visits its consequences upon one and all. The present local elections campaign which will close to-day with the verdict of citizens upon individual candidates, and on matters of policy involved in the important loan proposals submitted for the ratepayers’ approval, has been unusually interesting and animated. The Labour-Socialist Party’s energetic bid for popular support has had the effect of stimulating the activities of their opponents. As one important result, various local questions have been keenly debated, both in the Press and at public meetings. It is to be hoped that this animation will be reflected in a heavy and fully representative poll. In view of the vital issues at stake, every citizen qualified should make it a personal duty to record his vote.