LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15920, 4 May 1912, Page 13

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

, CRITICISM OF THE BILL. MR MASSEY'S COMMENT'S. [Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, May 3. A discussion on the Local Govern- | mcnt Bill took place this morning at a conference of delegates which has been dealing with the division of the Manukau County. Among those present were Mr W. F. Massey, M.P., and Mr F. M. Lang, M.P. The chairman read a circular issued by the Hospital Board at the suggestion of the Minister of Internal Affairs, calling a conference of delegates of local bodies in the Hospital district to elect seven delegates to represent the district at the General Conference to bo held in Wellington to consider the Bill. Mr Massey strongly opposed the limitation of the Auckland district's representatives to seven. He said that if tho Wellington conference wore to be of any value at all every local body should have a rer>resentative present. : He asserted that the Hospital Board and the Government had no power to limit Auckland's representation. Each local body had a right to be represented. Ho did not know whether the conference would be of much use, as the Bill had not been taken seriously by local bodies, but an expression of tho opinion of thos9 who had expert knowledge of local government affairs would bo most valuable if placed on record. To enable this to bo obtained each county should be represented, and in caseslike Manukau, where the Act was not in question, provision should bo made for representation. Mr Lang said that tho seven men chosen by tho conference called by the Hospital Board might represent only one particular form of local government. There were many different interests among local bodies and all theso should bo represented at the Wellington conference. He contended that a fairer way of electing delegates would be on the basis of ratable area. He had no desire to throw cold water on the Bill, but he merely objected to the way local bodies were to be represented at the conference.

Mr Massey said that the real difficulty with regard to local government was in connection witli country local bodies. It was the conditions under which they worked that required improvement. A very important matter •that, needed attention was the dual system of rating by counties and road boards. Local districts should be sufficiently large to enable them to employ a competent engineer to supervise the proper carrying out of works, but they should not be so largo as to be unwieldy. He felt that if at the conference thev were to have representatives from boroughs and counties they would have confusion, as their interests were so different. There were two important points about the Bill that oe'egates should consider. The first was with regard to the franchise. As far as ho could see every elector over tho age of twenty-one years was entitled to one vote, and if he were a ratepayer he had another. This was a new departure, and an exceedingly important one for country districts. As far as finance was concerned, the present Parliament grants were distributed on a meet unbusinesslike system, and the local body that had most inr fluenco and the loudest voice was very often tho one that received tho largest grant. Local bodies should be classified into two classes, those in need" of works and those which already had their roads and bridges. He had seen grants given to boroughs that wore almost in cities, while local bodies in the backblocks were being starved and settlers cut off from civilisation for months at a time. This question of finance was one point where amendment was most urgently needed, and it was the duty of the conference to seo, as far as it could, that something was done. The subject had been dealt with by tho British Parliament, which had a " development fund," intended for the construction of roads and so on in districts that had hitherto been neglected. This fund was administered by tho Developments Board, free from all political influence, and the moneys available were spent in the districts that needed them most. The Conference appointed four delegates, two. to represent Franklin and two the Manukau portions of the county.