LOCAL GOVERNMENT: COUNTY SYSTEM.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20494, 12 March 1932, Page 14

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: COUNTY SYSTEM.

SPECIAL ARTICLE. 1 '

(SPECIALLY WRIVtEX FOR THE TRBSS.)

[By L. C. Webb, M.A.J .

The Counties Bill introduced in the House of Representatives in 18 <G .divided New Zealand into o9 counties and, although it was contended by most critics of the Bill that this number was too large, yet local influence was so strong that by the tunc the Bill became law the number had been increased to 63. In the ensuing halfcentury this number has more than doubled, being now 127. This rapid multiplication has been due in part, no doubt, to an intense local feeling, but the main cause has been the curiously short-sighted policy of the central Government in regard to loans and subsidies. Under the Loans to Local Bodies Act of 1886, the maxinyim. amount that might be lent to any county in a year was uniform for all counties, with the result that several of the larger counties found it expedient to subdivide in order to increase their revenue from loans. The system adopted in subsidising county rates has had the same effect. In counties where there are no road districts, and where the general rates collected by the Council do not exceed £IOOO, the subsidy is 10s for every £1; where the general rates exceed £IOOO, the subsidy is 5s for every £l, with a maximum of £2500. In counties where there are road districts the subsidy is 10s for every £1 where the rates do not exceed £500; and 5s l for every pound where the rates exceed £SOO, with a maximum subsidy of £SOO. This arrangement has been a further incentive to the larger counties fo subdivide. In the Canterbury district, for instance, there -were up till 3910 sixteen counties; in that year, in order to increase revenue from subsidy, the counties of Malvern, Paparua, Heathcote, Halswell, Springs, and Ellesmere were detached from the Selwyn County, and in 1911 the counties of Rangiora, Eyre, Oxford, and Ivowai were detached from the Ashley County. At present, to govern a rural population of 91,000, Canterbury has 26 counties. The Isle of Wight, one of the smallest of the English counties, lias a population of 94,000. The areas of the Canterbury counties vary from 20 square miles to 2739 square miles, the populations from 520 to 12,865, and the rateable values (land and improvements) from £561,94-1 to £11,131,070. Such figures are a fair indication of the haphazard manner in which county government has been allowed to develop. ' i By an unhappy irony, the rapid ..subdivision of the counties was followed by a revolution in the conditions of -transport which made it above all desirable that the unite of rural local government should be large and rating charges spread over as wide an area as possible. Fifty years ago the traffic on county roads was almost exclusively confined to local ratepayers; to-day each county has to pay. heavily for roads to serve a motoring public only a small fraction of which contributes directly to its rates. The establishment of the Main Highways Board has done a little towards, easing the burden, but it is still true that the smallness of the counties is responsible for an anomalous system of road taxation and an absurdly complicated administrative machinery for the construction and maintenance of highways. ' The Cost of Small Counties. Where local bodies are many and -operate-on a small scale, the area they serve pays more than it should by way of administrative expenses. The following table shows the total pay-' ments of the Canterbury counties for the financial year 1929-1930, together with the percentage of this amount spent oh general administration: —

V -1 I ' l'hese figures show cUV; *' : much more eeonomieat^ f countifs are; the ten ® ingovci- £20,000 a 6 per cent, in *£ : while the nine countfe"'launder £IO,OOO a year *ve»jP 14 per cent. . Small counties increase tive expenses in t make necessary the creatioa f authorises suc-h as river" and drainage boards to carjyV* " which extend into several' * The Road r 'i. The evils resulting from'jyjjj ? si ve number of counties past, and are still to tensified by the existence' Board-;. These vival of Provincial and although the was intended to was unwisely made the result that the two' tinned side by side. Boards Act of ISB2 the the Road Boards has ly, and the number decreased in the last 320 to 17, of which 10 art The costliness of well illustrated- by d the finances of the in the Ashbtirton Conhty 1929-30. The Boards £18,655, of' which / cent., is accounted for WaMßaaßy tive expenses. ' Oyer'the, the administrative Ashburton County were of the total expenditure, the Road Boards niot been the ratepayera in have been saved expefflafslHl nearly £3OOO a year.' burton Road Boards. been abolished. . ' It is probable that by iricirafenlKl "size of counties,, maining Road Boards, ferring to the'' counties •" lie i "Motions of "river, conservancy rabbit boards, drainage similar authorities, "a saving araßl; £IOO,OOO a year in'-the cost 3 of rural loeal be effected. The parochialism ment is further sion of counties are,, for most adminilw^^pa|^B watertight coniparfineg^jß^^Ml ally '^||SN3h of 1876j the rictmgs merely as units of" later enactments? 'lu^^39|^H separate districts for- tb^MBHBj general rating.;: The 1920 provides that gen^^H|j be levied separately the basis of the estiniated''®^^^JH in that riding, ■ - funeral /adflj||B expenses to be divided ings in proportion, to • tbeifsg|j|Ml value. It is also laid' fr*9M| separate accounts are to .WfMH each riding and. audited sepjfiwp® the Audit Office. ; : 'Jgfl As might be expected,. vastly complicates county tive machinery and hindeH| IKMj velopment of policies. Every County Connff»!W| gards himself primarily' »„ sentative qf his riding, determination of the wot& to fee carried out in that judgment, rather than Council's expert staff, There is no clear line between what expenditure -JjWjjljjjM charged to riding to the general accounts of and it is curious to find still charging expenditure highways to the ridings The Counties last year gives County t Cwiß®®M much-needed power to close, riding accounts and to striw rates over the county as.ft w JB whether they will take this provision remains to the meantime, the riding, the county, must be regw*" l • unit of rural local govenunenij* Other aspects of the will be discussed in the ,a of this series. :

Total pay- . Percentage ments (in spent on County. thousands of £'b) administration. Waimairi 83.9 5.3 , Waimate 63.4 5.7 Heathcote 60.6 3.8 Ashburton 58.5 7.3 "Waipara 39.5 5.5 Geraldine 34.2 6.0 Paparua 29.5 4.0 Mackenzie 24.7 7.5 Levels 24.4' 8.1 Amuri 21.8 6.7 Kaiboura 18.3 10.4 Malvern 17.1 ,15 Sehvyn 15.5 8.7 Ellesmere 13.6 7.9 Cheviot , 10.8 10.6 Akaroa 10.8 6.0 Kowai 10.6 33.7 Rangiora 9.7 11.8 Oxford 9.0 9.2 Halswell 8.9 7.2 Eyre 7.9 ] L7 Springs 7.7 12.2 Ashley ' 6.0 1.1.9 "Wairewa 5.7 20.4 Mount Herbert 4.0 19.7 Tawera *> ■> 19.8