COUNTY AMALGAMATION OPPOSED

Evening Star, Issue 22775, 9 October 1937, Page 9

COUNTY AMALGAMATION OPPOSED

KILLING LOGAL INTEREST DOMINATION OF CLOSEST SETTLEMENTS FEARED [Per United Press Assocxati«».] WELLINGTON, October 8. Opposition to the proposed amalgamation of local bodies was expressed at to-day’s meeting of the Makara County Council. Suggestions submitted by the chairman (Mr E. Windley) were debated and supported unanimously. Mr Windley said that local government should be responsible for all road work, including the main highways, with a fair distribution from motor taxation, plus local rates. The present local boundaries should remain, unless obvious advantages were apparent by amalgamation. The responsibilities of the counties were many times increased with the increased traffic on all roads, and hence the larger the county the more unwieldy and less satisfactory the service from the ratepayers’ point of view. State control was devoid of the same responsibility as local body control. County administration was always under the scrutiny of the ratewho found part of the money. Ho did not support derating and opposed amalgamation. Mr Windley said he considered that the franchise should remain the same. Local indebtedness was for tho most part the result of the will of the ratepayers. They could not support amalgamation because it would almost disfranchise the ratepayer, resulting in sparsely-populated portions of the larger counties receiving crumbs of expenditure. They would be dominated by closely-settled localities, and the expenditure would not be under tho present rigid control. A larger county would never give as good a service to the ratepayer, who, generally speaking, would not even know where his county boundary began or ended. It would kill all interest in local government control.