COUNTY COSTS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 118, 14 November 1925, Page 13

COUNTY COSTS

STATISTICIAN'S FIGURES

MISLEADING

MORE ACCURATE METHODS

PROMISED

"A CONTRADICTORY LETTEE."

A letter from the -Minister of Public Works, received at the ..meeting ol the. Jforth Island Motor Union last .njght, admitted that the, Goy-' ornment j'gures. did not atipresent facilitate the separation, of a administrative from other costs in > Comity ./returns. His Department, said the writer, was of opinion* Wat countyl' administration was in sonje cases unduly expensive, and recommended amalgamation of many ,of the smaller; counties to improve the^position. .'. , i ■ ,'

The Minister wrote, jn reply to. the request for a- commission to enquire into the position, that "the Department has for some time' been fully alive to the position, and to. the "apparent necessity for the institution of some reform whereby overhead charges could, be "materially reduced, and :with the intention of arriving at a liio'ro' definite .statement of existing; conditions, 'ami' obtaining the more detailed'information.necessary to, show ; whether; or.not. the expense,.of• a commission is?, justified, n) y Department has been in touch with the executive of the New Zealand Counties Association.. The only available figures covering the cost q'f county: administration and its proportionate relation to local bodies'• incpme-jVnd expenditure, are of course, 'thpse- supplied by. the Government Statistician in his annual publication relating- to local" bodies affairs generally. A perusal of those returns might-lead-anyone to think-that so far as County Councils are concerned, administrative charges are.: mi most cases unduly' ■ high. -' '■.!■.- ---"A considered 'opinion has how been received'from Mr? A.: E. Jull, president of the New Zealand Counties; Associa-. - tion, and from- this- it -appears that in very many cases whore the .'statistical returns show ' administration. charges to be./particularly, high,'the- true position is .not .disclosed.. Mr.. Jull - points ■ out that'pas inVe'stigatioiis 'made his Association, .'/..'indicate that in many instances'an account of the ifeturn of particulars of t county finances etc, required by "the;.Gpvernme,nt Statistician being ,soniewhat'*inqoinplete(.;;ahd 'not containing Jjjeparaie'.. provision' for more or':less unusual and: unforeseen items of "county-.espenditure, -. county affairs, to a- considerable extenj/ have adopted the policy- of including ;items in the adr ministration .column 1' of.' the Teturn, when there appeared'no', other- place to show them. It will readily be seen that such a proceeding •results in a ijnite erroneous percentage of 1 ■ administration costs being 'shown; and Mr.: *Jull quotes 1 the special cases wliereby.! such action oh the part .of, QQunty .officials. hWsho^rn the following. •—(Here,;.'./errors' ot 13,7^ -percent instead-of^lO-i iper cent.,}lS.23-.p« |: cent, instead 0f,942 per cent>i34 per cent;-instead, of 10. ■ per cent., are.cited); , ' '" ■;' "These" examples" continued ' the letter! "liunderstand, can be: irultiplied ;but; ithey-. are sufficient- to show the false conclusions arrived at wHen -the percentages shown in the .statistical return are- viewed without analysis;-. The .ma(;ter:;hiis, however, berin takgn-up 1 by 'the Counties Association with: :the Govcrnmefit Statistician, and it is anticipated' that an, improved system ol compilation of particulars of county expenditure will be devised which will show t>he exact position so Jar as administrative charges are concerned. The appointment of a commission,: therefore, does -not 'appear to justified." The lettetriti.regard- to • the• comparison /submitted, by" the";WelUhgton Automobil4,'.,Club.' of costs of administration (average:.county';-'.9125:: per, ceht.y'.cities and boroughs' 3.6 perc ent., and Public Works Department 5.67 per cent.) points out that counties have larger areas and more difficult inspection, and control of work, and that',..the ' Department's figures relate not only to roadworks, ■'• but. to hydroelectric-ajid railway works, on which-bri account 5 of the greater expenditure," 'overhead icharges are;;comparatively lower than (on road- construction. A; review'of these three average charges for- comparison was therefore hatdlyvpossible.7,:.;,-, ,:r ( >. ; ; .■•;.:■.."■■■;-„■,:.-•; "My; Department"' continues the letter, "is however of opinion that the county administration charge is in many cases.,high.er,,>than'. t .tie i ceßsary, and: . the best solution of the whole difficulty would appear to bo,'.found in the aplalga- i niation of many. of ,the smaller counties, provision: ;fto' which now ■ exists."-,, ■ "That is.the most-contradictory.letter I .ever heard read'- commented the chairman' (Mr. ".A. J. Toog'ood); ", "I. am .'pleascd\t6;upte '';;tho'-' reason given".for the' apparently, high- costs of county administration" said" Mr."' C. M. ■'Banks, .-'.".ajid-,-1 trust that the ..Government "•■will: take .steps, to sec .that bookkeeping methodsjfflre ■ changed, so that ■ the position can ;be. shown, and a'comparison, be made possible"