The Opunake Times FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 1895. LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Opunake Times, Volume III, Issue 121, 30 August 1895, Page 2

The Opunake Times FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 1895. LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

The new Bill, which we gave a summary of in our last issue, is one of very great importance and will need very careful thought before being accepted by the people. There is nothing very new in the Bill in any direction, it being mainly a rehash of existing statutes. It reminds one of the old story of the haggis and whats' intlet. There is almost a little of everything intlet, but whether it will prove as savoury a dish when cooked by the House is quite another question. Great credit is claimed for the author, as well as the legal draftsman, for the masterly skill shown but we fail to see where it comes in. There are two leading features in it, the first being its bulk, and the second disregard of local government principles. It has been admitted generally that there is too much local government, mainly because the local governing bodies overlapped and hud not their individual duties sufficiently defined. We are satisfied tbat it was a mistake to do away with the provincial system of government, and this Bill professes to reinstate it in a mild form, but so unlike the original that it would be hard to find out tbe points of resemblance. If provincialism had been modified and certain of its legislative powers curtailed, it would have been far and away the best form of government, considering the requirements of the colony. A Provincial Council, conbining the duties of Land, Hospital and Charitable Aid, Education, Rivers and Drainage, and Licensing Boards, and having charge of maiu arterial roads, would be a useful body, and would find its time fully employed in attending to the duties appertaining to these departments. It would be only necessary to have eight or nine such bodies in the colony. Then all the rural portion of the colony could be divided into road districts for management of roads and other necessary local works. According to the Official Year Book, published under the auspices of the author of the proposed new Bill, it has shown that Road Board management is the cheaper method, when compared with County Councils, and it is far and away the more satisfactory. It has fallen somewhat into disrepute, not on account of the use of it so much as on account of the abuse of it. If, instead of having them all sorts and sizes, a minimum area, or value, or population were fixed as a necessary qualification somewhat as is proposed in the new Bill, we feel assured that there would be no necessity for any county government at all. If, on the other hand, the name " county " i 3 preferred and considered more dignified by aspirants to local government honors, then by all means call them Counties and abolish Road Boards. To continue the two forms with similar duties as regards roads and purely local works is only to continue the same perplexity which exists at present. Municipal government is totally distinct, and we are satisfied canuot be saisfactorily worked by including it in Counties or Road Districts management. By the Bill it is proposed to abolish the borough of New Plymouth, and it would become possibly a riding of the new County embracing it. It would be entitled to one member in the Council to look after its iuterests. When it is considered what multifarious and necessary duties devolve on the Borough Council, and the amount of time which councillors voluntarily devote to looking after the interests of the borough, it can hardly be conceived how such a proposal as that contained in the Bill could be seriously put forward. Tbe same argument applies to the other towns throughout the colony, whether boroughs or town districts. Their needs and requirements are totally distinct from rural districts, and therefore their government must be distiuct; that is. of course, if it is considered advisable that the ratepayers' wishes' should be consulted. The friction comes in nbw by having two bodies rating, and having control of roads divided in all districts except-

ing boroughs. If Town Districts were separated from County government, and all works within their boundaries thrown on their own shoulders they would work much more smoothly, andsuch government would be more satisfactory to the townspeople. Similarly with Road Boards, if they were allowed the maximum rating power, and then made contributions to the provincial fund for charitable aid, &0., and had charge of all roads in their district, it would do away with the much vexed question of dual control. In our opinion all the institutions necessary would be Provincial Councils, Road Boards, and Municipal Councils or Boards. If Road Districts are retained, Counties are only excresences and vice versa, provided Counties are reduced to a workable size to undertake all local work. One reason assigned for the proposed change is the asserted cost of the present forms of government. If the Bill became law it would not follow that the total cost would be much diminished, and we doubt very muchif the Government, under a central system, get as much work done for their money pound for pound where they undertake road and other works as the local bodies would if the money were handed over to them to carry them out. When the Provincial form of Government was abolished County Government was introduced in 1876 in its stead, and it was no doubt intended tbat, as the ratepayers became educated to the desirableness of centering everything in Counties, that the Road Boards would die. Public opinion, however, has shown a very decided tendency in the opposite direction, and instead of centralisation becoming stronger, disentegration has been the order of the day. New Counties have been formed and still more have been desired, but have been forcibly denied the people. In 1882 after the new county system had been in force six years, a new and comprehensive Road Boards Act was passed, which was certainly the result of studying the wishes of the people. All wise and permanent legislation is said to be the outcome of the voice of the people, and this voice has cried out for direct control of local affairs by those interested, and yet this Bill seeks to diametrically oppose the voice and will of the people as manifested. We do not think it likely that the Bill will be put through this session and it is more than probable when it gets discussed and considered that it" will either be dropped or amended, so that it will provide nothing more than nominal changes, and tbe Local Bodies Act, in one volume.