LOCAL BODY COMMISSION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22065, 22 September 1933, Page 8

LOCAL BODY COMMISSION

ORDER OF REFERENCE THE TERMS TOO NARROW. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September 21. Commenting to-day on the order of reference with respect to the local body commission to be set up by the Government, Mr A. S. Burgess, president of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, said: “The terms of reference appeared to be so narrow as to prevent the commission from- devising any substantial measure of reform. The inquiry, which was confined to the counties and bodies within the counties, thereby excluding hospital districts, municipalities, harbour board districts, and power board districts, could touch only the fringe of the problem. Though the abolition of rabbit boards, river boards, road boards, and independent town boards would simplify rural government, it would make little difference to the cost or the efficiency of the whole system. There were at present only 53 rabbit boards, 40 independent town boards, 18 road boards, and 57 drainage boards in a total of 681 local bodies. Their total expenditure in 19S1-32 was only £528,385 out of a total local government expenditure of more than £20,000,000.’' Mr Burgess said it was futile to attempt to reform rural local government without reference to hospital boards. The cost of the hospital system (about £2,000,000 a year), the unsatisfactory method of levying and collecting county rates, and the excessive number of hospital boards constituted one of the main problems of rural local government. It was clearly desirable that the proposed commission should be free to recommend as it saw fit a readjustment of the boundaries so as to bring the counties and hospital districts into conformity and a readjustment of the financial relations between county councils and hospital boards. It was true that the amendment to the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act passed last session established a process whereby the number of hospital districts could be reduced. It should be obvious, however, that as the hospital system and county system were closely interconnected they should be dealt with as part of one problem. To deal with each separately would only intensify the existing confusion. “The most serious defect in the terms of reference for the commission as reported," continued Mr Burgess, “is the exclusion of boroughs. This class of local body more than any other is responsible for the heavy increase in local government expenditure since the war. Between 1922 and 1932, for instance, the total indebtedness of boroughs has risen from £16,282,960 to £29,505,955. Their expenditure is at present nearly half the total local government expenditure. The overlapping of functions in the four large cities is quite as bad as anything to be found in the rural areas. It should also be remembered that two classes of local bodies, namely, hospital and harbour boards, are partly rural and partly urban, and that in many localities there is urgent need for rereadjusting county and borough boundaries. In short, if the commission’s terms of reference are to be as narrow as reported, it will be prevented from reviewing any of the major problems of local government.”