LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19891, 9 March 1928, Page 8

LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

The right of the Mayor of an independent borough to criticise the city's administration of matters in which it is directly concerned has been denied by the Mayor of Auckland, but Mr. Potter naturally and reasonably declines to admit any impropriety. But more extraordinary than the council's resentment of public criticism is the obvious fact that it is strangely insensitive to public opinion upon the major aspects of municipal administration. Within recent years there has been a marked development of serious interest in tho problems of local government in the metropolitan area, and that deliberation has been accompanied by increasing discontent with the existing order. Yet while popular apprehensions are greater and more widespread than ever before, the complacency of the council appears to be imperturbable. With a degree of confidence that is certainly not general among citizens who have given thought to the matter, it has brusquely rejected the opportunity to co-operate in examining a plan for the reorganisation of local government in Auckland that has reputable sponsors and considerable public support. There is, indeed, a common feeling that the council, if not indifferent to public opinion, has lost touch with it, and that there is little prospect of restoring the desirable degree of intimacy so long as the council's constitution is entrusted to the present method of election. With the vast extent of the city, it is unreasonable to ask the electors to make an intelligent selection of twenty-one candidates from a list of fifty or more names without any reliable means of identifying more than a few of them. If the prevailing discontent with the civic administration could be traced to its source, it would probably be found that a prime factor has been the increasing exasperation with a method of election which the intelligent elector recognises to be as stupid as it is cumbersome. It is not surprising that popular opinion sees in the proceedings of the council additional reason for condemning tho process by which its members were placed in office. The only effective escape from this confusion is the adoption of the ward system for elections only. The council has ostensibly considered that proposal and ostentatiously evaded it by advancing a scheme by which only half the members would retire at each election. That device fails to meet the deficiencies of the present system, and its recommendation by the council has certainly not placated the general discontent. The present council has still time to show itself ■more responsive to public opinion. As a first step, it would be wise to agree to the next "election being conducted on the ward system. It would not be a dangerous experiment and at least would produce closer relationship between the council and the public. Alternatives are being put to the test in other cities, and have been seriously considered by many people in Auckland. It will be time enough to examine them when the council's complacency is proved to be nothing better than obduracy. - 0