"DEMOCRACY GONE MAD"

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 24, 30 January 1933, Page 8

"DEMOCRACY GONE MAD"

Strong terms were used by the Director of, Town Planning when he stigmatised the New Zealand local government system as "democracy gone mad." Yet a considered'survey .of the whole scheme must convince any unprejudiced investigator that it is, not supported by reason. The excessive subdivision of territory and functions and the multiplication of authorities safeguard no democratic principle. The system is out-of-date and unwieldy. It adds greatly to the cost of local government, for each ■ authority must have its office and staff. If it collects rates or makes separate" ■ charges on the community there is duplication of this work. Yet public opinion on the question is not strong for reform. Business- men, farmers, and householders protest against high rates, yet they appear to lack interest in the basic problem of local government reform. They complain when a fraction of a penny is added to the rate, but they seldom bestir themselves to secure reorganisation of the system which, by -its inherent clumsiness and inefficiency, makes high rating inevitable. The Director of Town Planning cited the opposition to Dr. Campbell Begg's proposals for hospital reform. The example is a striking one. Proposals similar to those submitted by Dr. Begg were strongly recommended by the National Expenditure Commission. . But what support did they receive from organisations of business men, farmers, or ratepayers? The system is certainly out-of-date. It was designed for a time when means of, communication had not reached the stage of the present day, when it was necessary to fix boundaries according to the area that could be covered with horse transport. Now conditions have changed, but the system remains the same. If anything it is worse, for new types of authorities have been created. How is any reform to be brought about? Little is to be hoped for from the Government which is strong in words but woefully weak in action. For years past Governments have been stating that the system is in urgent need of reform. Yet nothing is done. A Royal Commission is proposed but never set up. An apologetic attempt is made to provide for piecemeal amalgamation of local i authorities; but even this half-heart-ed effort stops at the threats of j parochial opposition. To bring about reform there must ibe a clear and strong demand from without This is not undemocratic. j Democracy is not necessarily a sys- : tern of small administrative units. The principles of government by the people are maintained when authority is vested in councils exercising various functions and controlling large areas. Indeed the maintenance of democratic principles is made more.sure by the consequent gain in efficiency and economy, through reduction of overhead expenses and through the services of more capable administrators—both elected and appointed. The man of capacity who will not serve on a small board may be persuaded to become a candidate

for a much larger council. Electors, too, can judge the capacity of their representatives more fairly when the work is done by one authority than when responsibility is shared by several bodies. In paid service the advantage is always with the stronger body which can afford to engage the best men, and can use the services of experts economically. With so much to be gained it is surely worth while for business men and their organisations to attempt to accelerate reform. The Director of Town Planning has shown how they may do this. Under the Town Planning Amendment Act of 1929 authority is given for the establishment of voluntary regional committees fully representative of the social and economic activities within the region. This authority has not been put to wide practical use. It is the duty of business men to^see that the powers are not neglected. A hundred per cent, success may not be achieved straight away, but regional committees would at least be able to begin consideration of the problem, and would remove some of the barriers of parochialism which now stand in the way of progress.