LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22063, 20 September 1933, Page 4

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EARLY HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND INTERESTING ADDRESS BY DR HERCUS At a meeting of members of the Otago branch of the New Zealand Legion held in the Concert Chamber of the Town Hall last night a very interesting address was given by Dr C. E. Hercus, chairman of the Local Body Research Committee. Dr Hercus said;

It has been a great pleasure to me to. lead a Study Circle under the auspices of the New Zealand Legion into local government in New Zealand. We are told that one of the characteristics of modern democracy is that the people, generally, are apathetic concerning their government unless some proposed reform touches sectional interests. Condliffe. in a valuable economic history of New Zealand, has an arresting chapter which he calls “An Experiment in Democracy." He contends that New Zealand democracy has turned from the paths of experiment into those of satisfied conservatism and even mediocrity. He refers to our preoccupation with purely occupational interests, our obsession with economic progress, and the absence of any very keen intellectual life.

It is not my purpose to discuss these criticisms, but there can be no doubt that in so far as the legion succeeds in getting its members to study the political, economical, and historical background of this country and its relation to the world at large, to that extent it will be contributing to a return to the high standards of democracy which were visualised by the founders of our country. The question might well be asked: To what extent does local government in New Zealand lend itself to collective study? Apart altogether from our present discontents, the subject is a fascinatine one. As Condliffe has said, the whole settlement and development of New Zealand is, indeed, an experiment in democracy. New Zealand to-day is what the colonists have made it. No “ heavy hand of an effete ancestraliem ” has hindered progress. There is, however, an immediate problem in local government affairs in New Zealand, and the existence of this legion is clear evidence of the existence of the problem. It is not necessary for me to do more than summarise the present situation. The final report of the National Expenditure Commission of 1932 gives an admirable statement of the position and speakers, from one end of the Dominion to the other, have emphasised one or other aspect of the problem of New Zealand’s local government. MANY LOCAL BODIES.

In a country with a population of a million and a-half there are ho fewer than 600 local authorities, or approximately one local authority to 2300 inhabitants. There are 17 different forms _ of local governing bodies in the Dominion, each with borrowing powers and direct, or indirect, rating powers. There are between 5000 and 8000 elected and nominated members to these local bodies with professional and clerical staffs of 6650, with total staffs of 45,402, and annual wages and salary bills of £6,500,000. Australia, with nearly five times our population and 29 times our area, has not more than 1100 local authorities. The precedent for a multiplicity of legislators was apparently set up with the original New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852, for Dr Morrell recalls that, in a letter to the London Times of May 5, 1852. the following criticism is made; These 26,000 people seem to require an enormoim quantity of governing. Everyone in this favoured land will be a legislator and the burden of proof will rest upon anyone who denies the possession of senatorial honours.” To those who contend that it is- a good thing to have many people actively efigaged in local government it is necessary to point out that it is expensive and relatively inefficient. SOME COMPARATIVE FIGURES. Our local body debt in New Zealand is £4B per head, excluding education, while the corresponding figures, excluding education, in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America respectively are £2B and £22. The National Expenditure Commission sum up the position in the following words:—“For the period under review—that is, 1915 to 1930—the population of the Dominion has increased by only 29 per centum, whereas the number of local-authority employees has increased by 76 per centum, the wages paid by 199 per centum, the gross loan debt by 191 per centum, the total expenditure by 224 per centum, and the rates, licenses, and taxes by 181 per centum. The growth of local authorities has been so abnormal that we have no hesitation in saying that a comprehensive investigation, with a view to effecting economies in local govern; ment administration, is now a matter of considerable urgency, and should form an essential feature of any plan of readjustment over the whole community.” It is noteworthy that in addition to this substantial framework the Government employs no fewer than 801 inspectors at a cost of £369,000. Time will not permit any discussion of the controversial question as to how much of this expenditure was on financially productive work beyond stating that before the institution of the Local- Government Loans Board in 1929 much of this expenditure was extravagant, and some of it ill-advised. With these facts before us the circle commenced to study the history of the development of local government in New Zealand. COLONISATION OF NEW ZEALAND. Some time was devoted to a study of the factors concerned in the colonisation of New Zealand, and we saw that, broadly speaking, the colonisation of the country was the product, of two distinct factors. The first was the “expansive energy of the colony of New South Wales.” From here came the first missionary to the Maoris, Samuel Marsden, as well as many Australian traders. The early European population of Auckland came largely from Australia. Thus Fox in the “ Six Colonies of New Zealand” writes in 1851: “The settlement was a mere section of the town of Sydney transported to the shores’ of New Zealand, filled with tradesmen who were reaping a rich harvest from the expenditure ot a regiment of soldiers, a parliamentary grant, missionary funds, and Native trade.” There were also other visitors in the shape of whalers and sealers, but shore whaling was largely dependent on New South Wales. The second and more important factor in the colonisation of New Zealand was the revival of the colonising impulse in Britain herself in the early nineteenth century. Edward Gibbon Wakefield, after founding South Australia in 1836, turned his attention to New Zealand, and the New Zealand Association was formed in 1837. Though this association failed to get Government recognition it led to the formation of a New Zealand Company which despatched its first ship to New Zealand in September, 1839, without waiting for Government sanction or parliamentary power. The first batch of settlers landed in Wellington on January 22, 1840, though New Zealand was still a foreign country. The Colonial Office, by this time, realised that New Zealand would have to be annexed, and Captain Hobson was sent from New South Wales to annex New Zealand and include it within the political boundary of the Colony of Now South Wales. The period, from the arrival of the first settlers under the New Zealand Company to the granting of the Constitution in 1852, is one of conflict between the Colonial Office in England, the Governor in New Zealand, and the New Zealand Company. The story is well told by Pember Reeves in the “Long White Cloud” and by Hight

and Bamford in their “ Constitutional History and Law of New Zealand.” Though Otago was not founded until 1848 it took a keen interest in the struggle to secure the right to control its own affairs and to have the country administered by a representative Parliament. In the Hocken Library there is a report of a meeting held in Dunedin on December 3, 1850, for the purpose of endeavouring to secure representative Government. THE SIX PROVINCES.

The Constitution Act of 1852 established six provinces in New Zealand —Auckland, New Plymouth, Wellington, Nelson, Canterbury, and Otago. Each province was to have a Provincial Council to consist of “ such number of members, not less than nine, as the Governor shall, by proclamation, direct and appoint.” Each province was also to elect a superintendent. The franchise was conferred upon every man over the age of 21 who had, for six months past, possessed certain property qualifications. The Provincial Councils were to administer all lawfe'making for the peace, order, and good government of the province with the exception of 13 specific matters which were excluded from their jurisdiction. These matters included customs, justice, coinage, and currency, post office, etc. From the machinery and powers given to these Provincial Councils it was inevitable that they would magnify their own importance. The Act created also a General Assembly consisting of the Governor, a Legislative Council, and a House of Representatives. From the first, in theory but not in practice, especially in the fifties and early sixties, the General Assembly left a wide field of legislation to the Provincial Councils. At first the provinces were financially very much dependent on the General Assembly, but these arrangements -were soon superseded. The news of the attainment of sellgovernment arrived in Dunedin on November 5, 1852, when the whole settlement gave itself up to rejoicing at having secured this generous measure of representative government. SIR GEORGE GREY. On January 17, 1853, the new act came into operation. Sir George Grey divided the colony into the six provinces, and allocated the number of members to be elected to the House of Representatives. The elections in the different provinces were held between July and October, and all the Provincial Councils met before the end of the year. Sir George Grey lelt the colony in December, however, without calling together the General Assembly, and this led to much dissatisfaction and criticism. His successor, Gore Brown, reviewing the working of the constitution, stated, “Most of the influential persons I have conversed with attribute the present unsatisfactory state of affaire to the convening of provincial councils before that of the General Assembly.” Dr Morrell gives the following quotation from Gibson’s book, “The Colony of New Zealand,” in relation to this matter:— “ He brought in a Constitution provincially, head hindmost,'and improperly forestalled the constitutional action of the Commons of New Zealand in Parliament assembled. He forced into premature activity the councillors and superintendents. The provinces and the colony were respectively arranged in hostile camps, and for more than 20 years internecine political contest took the place of what might and should have been harmonious co-operation in the colonisation of the country.” On May 24, 1854, the General Assembly met for the first time in Auckland, the seat of Government. It will be seen, therefore, that from the first the Constitution of New Zealand had a definite provincial bias. ISOLATED SETTLERS. It is difficult to realise the degree of isolation which the geographical conditions of the country imposed upon the settlers at that time. “In July last,” wrote Fox in 1852, “ the Nelson settlement was without news from Wellington, only 150 miles distant, for three months, while the Council was sitting _at the' latter place making laws affecting the former. News was ultimately received by way of Sydney, having gone 2400 miles round. I have myself been five months in receiving, at Nelson,_ a reply to a letter from Auckland which was sent by return of post. In 1851 Canterbury had no news from Otago between April and November. For practical purposes New Zealand was not one community, therefore, but many.” The South Island members of this first New Zealand Parliament spent nine weeks in beating up the coast to the scene of their labours in Auckland, There were no steamers and no telegraphs. THE FIRST MINISTRY,

Edward Gibbon Wakefield was a member of this first Parliament, and was active in asking for the establishment of Ministerial responsibility, which was granted to New Zealand in 1854, and marked a new departure in British colonial policy. Fitzgerald, superintendent of the Canterbury province, formed the first Ministry, and his general policy was one of “retaining In the Central Government an absolute authority over a small number of matters, transferring also over a small number- absolute authority to the Provincial Governments and then delegating the remainder to the provinces to be administered by them under certain organic instructions from the central authority.’ The Ministry, however, never earned through its legislative programme. They resigned, and the best chance of establishing the Central Gpverument on a satisfactory basis was missed. Superintendents and Provincial Councils went away from this first meeting of the General Assembly encouraged to look upon themselves as the real Government of the country, and the struggle between centralism and provincialism became inevitable. OPPOSING FORCES,

During the next few years we see these opposing forces coming to grips, and at first the provinces were in the ascendancy. At the end of 1857, the Lyttelton Times was able to say, “ The General Government has scarcely been heard of within this province. Almost every office and department of Government in which the practical and daily work of government is carried on for the benefit of the community is under the control of the Provincial Government and is paid out of the provincial revenue.” There was, however, a growing centralist feeling, and the Stafford Ministry set itself the task of increasing the powers of central government. The new Provinces Act of 1862 waa designed to reduce the increasing power of the provinces. The Act enabled a new province to be created on petition of threq-fifths of the electors, but not fewer than 150 in all, in any district of a province not less than 500,000 nor more than 3,000,000 acres in extent with a population of not less than 1000 European civilians. In virtue of this Act, Hawke’s Bay separated from Wellington, Marlborough separated from Nelson, and Southland from Otago, and an attempt was made to separate Wanganui from Wellington. The existing provinces were given no voice in regard to their dismemberment, and the policy caused much heart-burning. As a piece of political machinery Morrell states the Act did not work very well. The arbitrary limitation of the size of the_ new provinces was unfortunate in its effects. “Every provincial frog tried to mcke itself as big ns an ox. Southland burst in the process, and Marlborough would very likely have done the same had not a fatherly General Government informed the provincial authorities that an ordinary revenue of £I7OO and a precarious land revenue of some £28,000 did not justify the construction of a railway from Picton to Blenheim on a loan of £60,000 for the purpose.” There is no question, however, that the new Provinces Act seriously weakened the powers of the provinces. Fox in 1868 stated that “the point of its mischief was not the creation of these feeble provinces but in hanging a halter around the necks of the old provinces, which, uncertain when they were to be led to execution, became paralysed for good.”

I COMMENCEMENT OP BORROWING.

From this time on provincialism was always on the defensive, and never again could the provinces steer its own course, and almost forget the very existence of the General Assembly. The provinces, unfortunately, fell a victim to the besetting sin of New Zealand and commenced a borrowing policy. Proposals to restrict the provinces to loans on the security of their land revenue and for the purpose of promoting immigration and public works had been shelved. Canterbury set the pace when, in 1860, she borrowed £300,000 to tunnel the hills between Christchurch and Lyttelton. Encouraged by the success of this venture, in 1862, she raised another loan for further railways of half a million. Otago, not to be outdone by Canterbury, and in consequence of her gold discoveries, raised a loan of £500,000 for Public Works. Southland, early in 1863. sanctioned loans to the amount of £250,000 for jetty works, a railway from the Bluff to Invercargill and a tramway to Lake Wakatipu. “Within the space of six months the Domett Ministry sanctioned £1,871,000 of provincial loans.” _ There were men who perceived, at this time, that this wild rush for borrowed money would have disastrous consequences, but their warnings were unheeded. SEPARATION MOVEMENT. The eternal squabbles between central and provincial Governments were overshadowed in 1860 by Native affairs. Hostilities broke out in February, 1860, and the same year the Stafford Ministry fell. The main object of their administration had been, without destroying the provincial authorities, to control their eccentricities. The effect of the Maori war and the discovery of gold in Otago was instrumental in bringing about a vigorous separation movement. The leader of the movement in Otago was Julius Vogel, the "young, able, and ambitious founder and editor of the first daily newspaper in New Zealand, the Otago Daily Times. The largest public meeting yet held in Dunedin was held on May 10, 1862, when resolutions were passed and a league formed in favour of separation. southland and Canterbury, however, did not support Otago in this movement. Southland feared the loss of her new freedom, Canterbury thought that Otago was aiming at fixing the capital of the projected South Island colony in Dunedin, ine effect of the movement, however, was to move the seat of Government from Auckland to Wellington, which was finally carried out in 1865. To further appease the south the sembly established a subsidised service of steamers which was to run weekly between the four principal ports. It was resolved to establish telegraphic communication between the several provinces and to increase the parliamentary representation of Otago, which was now the wealthiest and most populous of all the provinces, by four more members, these concessions checked the progress of the separation movement in the South Island, though the Otago Daily Times continued to advocate it. The financial burden involved by the Maori Wars, which had necessitated borrowing by the General Government, superimposed upon the financial troubles in which the provinces were engulfed, had brought the whole colony into the lowest possible financial waters. The serious plight of the colony brought from Canterbury Mr Weld, with hig selfreliant policy. As at present, finance overshadowed everything else, and the result was to put a final cheek on the separation policy and turn the emphasis back to provincialism versus centralism. It is true that, in the second Stafford Ministry of 1867, Auckland and Otago once more endeavoured to secure separation, but without success. THE LAST STRONGHOLD.

Time will not permit me to trace the downward trend of the provincial movement and the ultimate triumph of central government. Many factors were at work —improvement in communications was a powerful influence; the discontent of the outlying districts in the provinces played an important part; lack of uniformity in legislation; the gradual absorption of provincial functions by the .Genera! Assembly; and, above all, finance, were the principal causes of the abolition. The immediate existing cause was the opposition of the provinces to VogeU Forests Bill, Which proposed taking S per cent, of the waste lands of the provinces for State forests. The last stronghold of provincialism was Otago. Mr Macandrew in the Otago Daily Times of June IS, 1876, reviewing the progress made by the provinces under provincial government, stated, “Can it be that the institution under which all this has arisen, which, in the heroic work of colonisation, has borne the heat and burden of the day, is to be suddenly swept away, not by the sovereign fiat of the people, but by that of some mysterious power and influence at Wellington?” In spite of the efforts of Mr Macandrew, Sir George Grey, and many other stalwarts, the provincial system was swept away in 1876, _ , Dr Hercus concluded by saying that his committee was studying the history of the early government of New Zealand and the appearance of the multiplicity,of local bodies, and was trying to evolve some constructive system to alter the present state of affairs.