STRONGER LOCAL BODIES

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 23, 27 July 1933, Page 10

STRONGER LOCAL BODIES

A thorough and valuable review of the development of local government .in New Zealand was made by' the Minister of Internal Affairs in his address to the Counties' Association. , Mr. Young pointed out how the number of local bodies had grown, and the inference to be drawn .was that this growth had weakened the county as a local government unit. Not only was the average area administered smaller, but there had also been inroads upon the functions of the county. The Minister did not suggest exactly how this could be corrected, but his remarks pointed to the desirability of the counties absorbing some of the lesser bodies operating within their borders, and also extending the area of' administration by amalgamation. The president of the Counties Association appeared to favour similar methods, but he pointed more particularly to the benefits from amalgamation in the reduction of overhead costs and the economical and efficient use of plant and machinery. There are, of course, difficulties in the way. Perhaps the greatest is that mentioned by one of the delegates, who quoted the results of a conference in his own district. All the members favoured amalgamation, but each was opposed to his own county losing its identity. There is, further, the rate-difference difficulty.

'■■ At first glance, it might Be thought that the factor of heavy rates would drive rural local bodies into amalgamation, but in. practice,' as the Hon. A. D., McLeod pointed out in his.Speech at Upper Hutt, the rate-, factor often • tends to keep local bodies apart, as even a heavily-rated unit does not wish to absorb one rated still more heavily. As between a developed area and an undeveloped/area, when amalgamation is discussed' differences relating.-to present arid prospective rates are carefully scanned by both sides. One would expect that if community of interest is to be found anywhere, it is to be found'among landowners interested in one river system. Yet a small river board on one part of a river will have no hospitality to offer to another small river board whose flooding or erosion problems, relatively to ratepaying capacity, appear to be worse. "What. is the work to be done, and where is the revenue to come from?" are the questions first asked. This was evident the other day when the Hutt River Board discussed >its expansion northward of Silverstream bridge. On the whole, the rating factor is a separatist factor, because some are worse than others. That dead level of bankruptcy which would equalise them will not arrive,-Yet this difficulty, though great, Js not insuperable". There are differences of rates within counties now. The immediate, question for consideration is how this and similar problems may be settled. Long ago the Government promised; a dommission. • Yesterday Mr. Co'ates spoke,l not of a commission, but an inquiry, and suggested that it would not be long now. The balance of opinion among -the counties favours a committee. Between the two methods the difference appears to be this: a; commission Would probably "recommend; more, but Would have no authority to follow up its; recommendations, andthe Government is not anxious to' offend local opinion; 4 committee, would recommend less, but might be more 'successful in carrying its recommendations into ...operation. So.far as the,public are. concerned, the method is. of minor importance, provided something is . done and! done quickly. While ratepayers are open to [lie economy argument it is the lime to bring them to the point of action. Delay may mean indefinite po::lpouesnciit.