Evening Post. THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1913,

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 45, 21 August 1913, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1913,

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM! The excellent attendance a,t the Conference of the New Zealand Counties' Association, and the prominent place given in its proceedings to the subject of local government reform, provide satisfactory evidence that those actually en- j gaged in the working of local government in the country districts are not disposed , to shunt this profoundly important question in the manner that unfortunately finds favour with the Government. The member of the Government to whose province this. matter belongs — the Minister of Internal Affairs— was compelled to cut a strange and not altogether dignified figrire before the Conference by the indecision of his colleagues. In introducing the Minister to the Conference, the President requested him to disclose as much of the policy of the Government in respect of local government reform as it was possible for him to announce outside the House. In his reply Mr. Bell displayed the same solicitude with regard to the- opinions of the Conference had merely approached the Conference that its President had displayed with regard to those of the Government. He in the attitude of a disciple ; it was for the Prime Minister to declare tyhe intentions of the Government ; but in the meantime he would like, in Socratic fashion, to put a few simple questions to the Conference, that he might not be compelled to return empty-handed to his chief. Did tha-CoofßTence wish to abolish town boards? Asd what about the harbour

boards? On these and other points Mr. Bell displayed a highly laudable curiosity, which augur* well for his future development in this branch of study. He was, of course, also able to say something about the opinion of the Government on these and other minor matters, but on the great question— the paramount question for the consideration not} only of the Conference but also of the Government and the Legislature Mr. Bell had practically nothing to say. He knows as well as anybody the immeasurable importance of the local government question in its relation to Public Works administration and Parliamentary reform, and he probably has opinions about it as clear and strong as those of any other member of the Legislature, but the collective mind* of' his colleagues is apparently still in too nebulous a condition to allow him to speak out. After making liberal allowance for the extraordinary difficulties of the subject and for the other embarrassing problems with which the Government has to deal, it is nevertheless very disappointing to find from a comparison of Mr. Allen's two Financial Statements that the Government is even further from a move in the matter now than it was a year ago. Last year a partial measure that would deal with tne financial aspect of the question and tackle the demoralising system of roads-and-bridges grants with a view to its ultimate abolition was definitely promised. This year we are simply told to expect nothing at all except the possibility that a Bill may be circulated before the end of the session. This is a, sad falling off, and goes far to discredit the Government's claim to be regarded as a Eeform Government. What possibility is there for any thorough treatment of so complicated and arduous a problem in the last session of a Parliament? The Government stands in grave danger of having to face the next General Election with the most momentous of its last campaign pledges unredeemed, and even without the appearance of any serious effort to redeem it. We trust that the Presidential address delivered by Mr. A. E. Jull to the Counties' Association Conference will have supplied a stimulus to the flagging zeal of the Government. Mr. Jull expressed the confidence that "many of the functions now exercised by the General Government will be more satisfactorily carried out by local authorities whose members will be selected because of their ability aftd capacity to administer the affairs of an enlarged local government." Mr. Jull is undoubtedly right. We hear much of the need for devolution in relation to the British Parliament, but I on its much smaller scale our. own Parlia- j ment stands in equally urgent need of the same medicine, and its ailment , is ot an even more demoralising character. Tho ' outcome of the deliberations of the Conference was, however, not quite so encouraging to the cause of reform as the attitude of the Local Bodies' Conference which the Mackenzie Government convened to deal with Sir Joseph Ward's Local Government Bill last y*ar. With the concurrence of Mr. G. W. Russell, who, as Minister for Internal Affairs, presided with great ability over its de- \ liberations, that Conference took a strong stand against the abuses of the present system of political doles for purely local works. Without either affirming or disBanting from that decision, the present Conference has preferred to concentrate attention upon measures whicl}, though merely palliatory, appeal' to it to be immediately practicable. Though a strong opponent of the existing system, the President supported this view. That system has, he says, been condemned time and again, yet in twenty-eight years there has been no appreciable improvement. Instead, therefore, of making ideal demands and getting nothing, he preferred to support the proposal that the subsidies of the State to local works should be at the uniform rate of 5s in the £1 on all general rates collected by the County Councils up to th» prescribed maximum, with special provision for the case of the more backward districts. This proposal, which was affirmed by the Conference with no appreciable amount of dissent, undoubtedly represents a considerable advance on existing conditions. But it does not go nearly far enough. Something on the comprehensive scale of Sir Joseph Ward's Bill will alone meet the case.