TOO MANY LOCAL BODIES

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 19, 22 July 1932, Page 6

TOO MANY LOCAL BODIES

As the discussion at Palmerston North Chamber of Commerce suggested, it will not be easy to reduce the number of local governing bodies.' There are two ways in which a reduction may be brought about. One is by amalgamation of like bodies, two counties being made into one or. three into two, or. one power board undertaking the work now managed'by several. The other way is by county councils or similar basic governing bodies performing the functions of other boards. The former .method may be applied with less difficulty, as it necessitates less drastic changes in organisation. The two or three amalgamating bodies would pool their resources and staff and; gradually reorganise them. There is reason in support of this method as improved means of communication permit efficient. administration arid supervision of an area much larger than when motors were unknown. If local jealousies can be overcome and old-time barriers removed, such amalgamation would in time result in a substantial reduction of expenditure and in the formation of stronger administrative bodies, able to employ experts to the best advantage and to obtain the full benefit of machinery.

The second method is not without precedent In the larger ,cities of New Zealand we~see'examples of city councils operating as power boards, tramway boards, and so on. In other countries this principle is carried even further, and a county council may "be responsible for education, hospital control; and other duties here undertaken by separate bodies. There is no reason why both methods of reduction should riot be applied where circumstances permit. But the obstacle to both is custom . and a form of localN vested interest. The multiplicity of local bodies is due in part to the need in former times of subdividing rough country into small areas, and in part to break* away movements. The ratepayers of one area have thought they would do better with entire control of their own affairs, with their own road engineer, their own hospital, and their own boards for this and that. Local ambitions have fostered this. But it has been a costly luxury. Now the people must decide whether it is worth the cost. If ratepayers could have the figures before them we believe \hey would decide at once for reduction* in the number of local bodies. But itis'difficult to persuade them to look at all the facts. The reception of Dr. Begg's plan for hospital board reform illustrates this. In Dr. Begg we have a man with power and driving force. Ultimately we believe his plans will be accepted. But where is &c driving force for general reform of local administration? It does not appear to be iin the Government, for the proposal has hung fire how for years. "