LOCAL GOVERNMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8129, 24 May 1912, Page 4

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The special committees appointed by the Local Bodies' Conference made their reports yesterday.

As we had expected, there is now very little left of the Local Government Bill. The framework of the measure has been altered out of recognition by busy-fingered innovators, and the general design bears no sort of resemblance to the original. The proceedings of the last few days merely afford another example of the folly of endeavouring to effect radical, forreaching changes in existing institutions without having first educated the public to see such benefits as there I may be in the innovations they are asked to approve. The conference has, j as was anticipated, eliminated whole sections of the Bill, and shown us that in its view the best service /that can be done in the field of local government 'is to merge a great number of the smaller bodies in those of larger responsibilities and to institute a better system of distributing the public money now expended' in a more or less promiscuous way in the form of grants. These reforms are comparatively simple, and can be grafted on to the existing scheme of government. Having taken this view all along, we naturally think the conference has acted wisely. The Local Government Bill put forward for its consideration would have launched us upon years of uproar and controversy. The resolutions actually arrived at form the basis for making very real improvements in a system which to some extent has been allowed to run to seed. We find it a little hard, however, to understand the attitude of the confer, enoe towards the report of the committee appointed to consider the proposals in regard to a Local Government Bpard and subsidies. The committee has reported in favour of a Board, and that it is “wholly opposed, to the present method of distributing public money by way of promiscuous grants.” It recommends “ the substitution of a system of increased subsidies upon some definite principle,” but. so far as w© are able to see, has offered no plan by which this may be secured. Although the Local Government Board as proposed by the P has all along seemed to us incapable of defence, we strongly incline to the belief that only through a Board—so constituted as to be able to resist importunity—charged- with the duty < allocating the annual grants made by Parliament—will wo get relief from what the conference wishes to see done away with. We suggested the other day that the conference would go to the root of things if it concentrated its attention to answering - the Minister’s question of “ whether it is desirable that the system of roads and bridges grants should be continued?” Its answer is, certainly, “ No,” but we seem to also detect a “ Yes ” about the reply. There is now no system at all, and, so far as can be seen, the conference is , more ready to throw upon the Minister the task of ■’designing on© than to come directly forward with a proposal bf its own. It is merely waste of time to' l recommend that the grants should be “upon some principle,” that “the necessities of each district should govern the expenditure therein,” and so forth, and then leave the matter stand - at that. What the conference shonld have done was ‘to show the Minister how -Parliament could break the chains which now bind it and ' purchase freedpm by placing in competent hands the distribution of doles. With some modification Mr Studholme’s recommendations could have been adopted with great profit. They cover the beginning, middle, and end of all local government reforms.