Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1932. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 10, 9 December 1932, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1932. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

The opposition sliown by members to certain clauses in the Municipal Coi’porations Amendment Bill bas led tbe Government to drop tbe measure. In tbe light of tbe Prime Minister’s declaration that if it were not passed before Parliament rose tbe matter could not be taken up when it reassembles in January, and tbe fact that tbe adjournment was almost at hand, no other decision was possible. Tbe legislation as drafted consists of nearly 400 clauses, and is a consolidating as well as an amending measure. It is in fact tbe most important Bill relating to municipal government that bas been before Parliament for many years. There was, therefore, good reason why the Government desired to see it translated into law, but it is questionable whether it was a wise procedure to endeavour to pass the Bill in tbe brief period iliat could be allotted for its discussion when tbe committee stage was reached on Tuesday. Tbe Prime Minister justified tbe Government’s action with tbe statement that tbe Municipal Association bad recommended tbe proposed alterations, but against this it was urged that there should be further consideration of tbe debatable clauses. Among tbe new proposals are a provision for striking off tbe municipal roll tbe names of persons who do not vote at an election; an extension of the time between elections to three years, and for tbe amalgamation of adjoining boroughs. It was generally anticipated that either one of these three clauses would be sufficient in itself to produce serious opposition, and most discussion -centred on tbe proposals to extend the time between elections and for tbe amalgamation of boroughs. Recognising tbe “reasonableness of some of tbe objections, and wishing to meet tbe desire of municipal bodies and tbe House,” the Minister in charge of tbe Bill (Hon. A. Hamilton) agreed to report' progress if the short title were passed. This course found favour and was adopted, the Government subsequently deciding to drop the measure until a new session, takes place. In tbe meantime tbe matter should have tbe serious consideration of local bodies. In certain directions it is accepted as an earnest of tbe Government’s desire for reform in local body administration, with a consequent saving to ratepayers. Tbe proposal to amalgamate boroughs was evidence of this. Mr Forbes, however, should go further. Tbe financial stress bas revealed to all tbe top-heavy local body administration in tbe Dominion. There is a plethora of authorities that should be reduced by amalgamation wherever this course can be found practicable. It is certainly most desirable. Some considerable time has elapsed since the Prime Minister stated bis intention to appoint a 'Commission to investigate local body administration. Nothing was done, mainly for tbe reason, no doubt, that other pressing matters of State bad descended ' upon tbe authorities. Six months ago tbe Minister for Internal Affairs announced, in place of the Commission, a scheme under which local bodies were being invited to coordinate their activities to reduce

tbe burden of expense. The success achieved is, perhaps, indicated in tbe further statement of two months ago that the Commission would definitely be appointed to go into the whole question. It is rather unfortunate that the appointment was not made when the Prime Minister first announced his intentions in the matter. If some result is to be achieved—and the public surely are behind Mr Forbes and the Government in this most important public question—serious consideration should be given to the matter at once. The immediate setting up of the Commission would be in the country’s interests.