Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, OCT. 26, 1932. SCOPE FOR ECONOMY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17920, 26 October 1932, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, OCT. 26, 1932. SCOPE FOR ECONOMY

One of tin? most interesting, and not the least complicated, aspects of the pending discussion on the economies proposed by the Financial Expenditure Commission will be that surrounding the various proposals for a centralisation of the control of national services. The question is one that, permits of very divergent opinions, for there is no . dOtf!jf"flUff'strong arguments can be advanced in support of both schools of thought. On the face of it, the tendency in recent years has been to move control from the central Government and vest it in the multitudinous local bodies that have sprung up like mushrooms in every part of the Dominion, many of them undoubtedly necessary, some of them desirable but far front imperative, and a few, at least, positively useless. Generally speaking, local government has much to commend it, for, apart, from the exercise of authority by those most intimately concerned with the work they undertake, it stimulates among the,people as a whole a greater, degree of interest than would be apparent, were they merely governed ami not vested with, the responsibility of governing themselves.- It, is this policy that has been ostensibly followed in the past, but actually the measure of decentralisation has been comparatively slight. Instead of control being diverted to local authorities, there has been little more than a duplication of control, and .it is largely because of this that the present system has proved so costly as to warrant the condemnation of the Economy ’GomrifisMori. This duplication pervades the whole sphere or local government and undoubtedly adds greatly to its cost, at the same time increasing the difficulties of governing authorities and rendering much of their work abortive. One of the present proposals, for instance, is for the centralisation of hospital administration, yet it might be justly contended that this service is already centralised. It. is a popular fallacy, and nothing more, that hospital boards control the institutions they represent. Certainly the board meets in solemn conclave and reaches various decisions, but all its conclusions are subject to investigation and revision by Government officials in Wellington who can only have a superficial knowledge of local requirements. Patients’ fees, for instance, were not fixed at the will of the board, but at the dictation of the department, and only recently there' was a protracted controversy ns to whether the board or the department should lix the wages of its staff. If the board desires to spend a few pounds on its buildings it must first obtain the approval of someone in Wellington both as to the plans and the expenditure, and every aspect of its finances is subject to review. A similar position applies to education control. Theoretically a school is supervised by a committee of householders, generally parents, who, naturally, have the interests of the scholars directly at heart. Actually these committees have little say in the question. Although they are on the spot and fully acquainted with all the circumstances, they are unable, for instance, to decide upon the erection of a new classroom. If: such a building is desired the proposal is submitted to the Education Board, which duly deliberates on the question and, possibly, instructs its architect to draw up plans and specifications. But oven the board cannot authorise the expenditure; it has to submit its views 1 o the department in Wellington, and its plans have to undergo revision by another architect. If the project is large enough .it might warrant, a special visit by the board’s chairman and architect, an official of the department, and the department's architect, and, perhaps, even of a Minister of the Crown; and these formalities having been duly completed, .in nine cases out of ton the proposal will finally be negatived. High school boards are similarly circumscribed, except that they deal direct with the department. Still more glaring is the position in regard to County Council activities. To take an extreme case, if certain ratepayers desire the erection of a bridge on a

main highway, to bo built partly out

of loan money and partly out of the main, highways fund, an application is made to the County Council, and, if it is favorable, the engineer will draw up the necessary plans; the next step will be to place the proposal before the district Highways Council, and if its approval is obtained, the plans arc forwarded on to the Main Highways Board; in the meantime application has to be made to the Local Authorities Loans Board for sanction for the loan, and, finally, if all these obstacles have been overcome, the matter is referred to the ratepayers for a deciding poll. If the commission’s recommendation is put into effect, however, and the highways fund placed under Lie control of Parliament, this body also might intervene. This is the situation that characterises practically every sphere of local body activity. An elaborate system of local government has been created, but the authorities are virtually impotent. Everything they desire to do is subject to revision by some over-riding power, and every work actually undertaken is subject to some form of supervision or inspection. In many cases the inspection is duplicated, and even triplicated, and so the waste n f public money goes on. It is little wonder that there is a growing demand for some alteration, and the sooner it is effected, one way or the other, the bbttor. If members'of local bodies are competent- of acting as real, arid not dummy, authorities then they are entitled to a greater measure of trust

mid confidence than is at present imposed in them. If they are not competent, if the elaborate organisations and Staffs they have built up arc inefficient, and constantly requiTo a network of ■ supervision, then dispense with them altogether and leave the responsibility with the supervisory body. lii this direction Ihere is undoubted scope for effective economies without curtailing the services rendered to the public and it is up to the Government to decide definitely Whether its policy is one of centralisation or decentralisation. It cannot continue to have it both ways.