COUNTIES' CONFERENCE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1213, 23 August 1911, Page 3

COUNTIES' CONFERENCE.

* —— GRANTS' AND SUBSIDIES. GOVERNMENT SYSTEM CRITICISED. AUCTIONEERS' LICENSES. The New Zealand Counties' Association opened its eighth conference yesterday in the Sydney Street Schoolroom, Wellington. About ninety delegates were present, counties in all parts of tho Dominion being represented. Mr. A. E. Jull (Waipaira) occupied the chair. Tbo last Counties' Conference was held in 1907. THE CHAIRMAN'S ADDRESS. POSITION OF ROAD BOARDS. Tho chairman, in welcoming tho delegates, said that it was only .'after taking an expression of opinion from tho various counties that tho conference had- been called, as the executive considered that , perhaps counties would not wish (in the absence of any Government measure dealing with local' government) to attend a conference, although tho executive felt that there were many questions • which could most profitably be discussed. Sinco tho last conference, some twenty counties had been constituted. The Act had been revived in five counties where it had hitherto been suspended and hid been brought into fcrce in three others. Thera were now some 118 counties varying in area, from 43 square miles in Eden County to 4420 square miles in Westland; there were seven counties of over 3000 square miles in area; six of over 2000 and under 3000 square miles; 10 over 1000 and under 2000 square miles; 30 over T>oo and, under 1000 square miles; the balance being under SCO square miles each. ''It is clear," continued the chairman, "that some cause has existed more than tho desire of localities to have a county established in their midst, to account for the rather wholesale constitution of new counties. The outstanding cause in my mind has been (lie very extraordinary method by which the Government lias distributed subsidy, the position being that a district premium is offered for the formation of small counties, as such bodies which collect an amount of not over ,£IOOO in rates are given 10s. in the £ subsidy, as against lis. in the .£ to those counties which collect .£2OOO and oyer. Further, no county may receive more than .£2500 a year in subsidy, no matter what quantity of rates it receives. There is a further and absolutely extraordinary condition, that if a county has one small road district wilhili its borders, uveji if it would otherwise be entitled to a subsidy of ,£2500, it cannot receive more than .£750. A. county which last year raised .£35,000. in rates only received ,£750 in subsidy, owing to this- cause. .Such anomalies nJ theso should be cleared up, and tho payment of subsidy placed upon a uniform and less eccentric basis. .If the idea of a subsidy is (as it is assumed tti be) a recognition of the liability of tho . Government to share a portion of the cost of the construction and maintenance of the roads of-the Dominion, then why should such subsidy not be \ paid upon some fixed basis in respect to rates collected irrespective of the size of the county?" He hoped that the conference might affirm its .views upon the proposal to extend the county franchise and reduce the voting power, and also upon the question of the abolition of certain local bodies. With the. considerable increase in tho number of counties on tho one hand, and the reduction of subsiding which tho road boards were now receiving (tho law now providing that not moro than .£2500 shall be naid to a county, in'cluding nil its i<tibi!ivi»ions), it, was surely time that, the conference took up a definite .position in regard to tho abolition' of tho remaining road boards. "I have lalcen out a statement," he continued, "of the rates'levied by road boards in 1009-10, which shows that 20 struck no rates, 28 collected under .£IOO each; 24 struck over .CIOO and under .£200; IS boards collected over .£2OO each in rates but under .£300; 18 over .6300 and under .£500; 22 over ,£SOO and under ,£750; 12 over .£750 and under .£1000; and 42 over .£IOOO. About fen of these latter have since been wiped out by the creation of new counties. By 1 lie revival of (he Counties Act in a number of counties where it has hitherto been suspended, over 50 roud board • districts, which have hitherto exercised sale control, will I>3 brought under the' dual control of counties and road boards, and tho timo is opportune to suggest the discontinuance of such dual control by the abolition of the road boards." He quite recognised that road boards in the past had done very excellent work, but was convinced that as an association they ought to express more than a pious wish lor rho abolition of dual coittrol. In conclusion, he trusted that the offorts of Hie conference would be of a nature that would assist those in authority in recognising that their views wore entitled to every consideration when legislation was proposed, and that those views might lie put forward in such a way as fa be a help to constructive legislation passed for tho improvement of tho conditions of the counties of New Zealand.

Tho adoption of the chairman's report was moveel by Mr. D. Borrie (Papakaio), seconded by Mr. J. D. Bruce (Akaroa), and carrier!. Tho balance-sheet showed the credit balance in hand as .£176 lGs. 4d., and the outstanding subscriptions ' as .£214 45., making a total of £391 os. dd. The outstanding accounts were ,£55, leaving a credit surplus of .£336 os. 4d. The balance-sheet was adopted. On' the motion of Mr. J. G. Wilson (Manawatu County), an honorarium of twenty-five guineas was voted the chairman in recognition of his services. A delegate expressed the hope that in future conferences the order papers would bo put in the hands of delegates earlier than on this occasiou. Tho chairman explained that the delay had been due to a series of circumstances, the most prominent of which had been the date at which remits were received from the various counties. THE REMITS. GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES. Mr. J. Rait, on behalf of the Murchison County Council, moved: "That the Public Works Department issno the authorities to local bodies for expenditure of Government , grants as soon as the. votes aro passed by Parliament: also that the present'system of dual control and supervision of expenditure of Government grants bv the Department and the local body be abolished.*' ' This was seconded by Mr. A. D. M'Lcod (Featherston). „„„,,, ,_ Mr. G. V. Pearce, M.F. (Patea), whose countv also had a. remit dealing with the matter on the Order Paper, said that the "grant" system was quite unsatisfactory, and tho" conference should take up a firm stand, and state to the Government that it was unsatisfactory. They should assert, broadly, that the principle was either right or wrong. Mr. PeaTce further urged tho advisability of tho local bodies being consulted by tho Government before grants were made—i.e., after once the country had been opened up. Grants made directly on tho application of individuals were against the interests of the country and should not bo countenanced. Mr. W. Ritchie (Wait'otara) designated the system in vogue at present as an electioneering system and should lie done away with. Mr. F. F. Hockly (Kiwitea) protested ■against the Public Works Department throwing the whole cost of the administration of the grants (engineering cosls. etc.) upon the focal bodies. Hi. agreed with Mr. Pcarce that some system of dealing with this matter on broad principles should be laid down by the conference. Mr. G. A. Marehant (Stratford) dissented from the view that Parliament should not make grants. If Parliament was not to make the grants how would the undeveloped area-; of Ihe country lie settled? lie also disagreed with Ihe statement that they should not nccept the money except on tho representation nf the local body, lie pointed out that a settler might be at variance with a local body, and his wants would be enI dcDgered 'if he were dependent on the re-

presentations of that local body. Ho reminded tho conference that the Government sent usually round to ascertain from tho county councils the works necessary. , , .. , . Mr. C. Johnstone (Raglan) said his county was a new one and without the svstem of grants they "could not live. His council had no complaint to make in regard ,to delay in tho receiving of the giants. ' , , Mr. F. T. Moore (Makara) suggested that all applications for grants should go through a conference of the county councils. (Laughter.) , Mr. R. K. Simpson (Marton) said that a sum of money had once been passed for his county, without application, and after waiting* for a year they had not got the money. ' Mr. W. Fraser, M.P. (Lake County) said that as long as their .system of local government obtained they would have to contimio the system of grants. That statement didn't necessarily mean that he was in favour of the svstem. He did not like the system at "all, .as a matter of fact. But having the system they should discuss the best way of dealing with it. As to certain remarks anent the delay in authorisation of grants already made, it should be remembered .that each particular item had to be passed by the Executive of the Government. The reason for this was that Cabinet did not keep its treasury full always, and if the expenditure were to take place immediately all the allocations were made, the Treasury might necessarily be embarrassed. But without doubt there was, sometjmes, too much delay, and tho money came when it cost far too much to expend it—in tho winter, for instance, instead of in the summer. It was matters such as these that they had to contend with. Mr. .7. W. Foreman (Clifton) said that under Sir IV. Hall-Jones's administration the principle had been observed that the Government should undertake the cost of opening up newly-settled districts; but latterly the proposal was that the cost of the upkeep and improvement of the roads should be thrown upon tlie settlers. For this reason most of tho'TaranaJci counties had opposed this proposal when put before fhein.

The subject was debated at length, other remits lower down the order paiier dealing with the same matter also being introduced. Mr. J. Horn (Vincent) moved as an amendment that the movers of tho remits from 1 ta 9 (covering grants to local bodies) bo a committee with the chairman, the mover, and three other delegates to frame one general resolution on the subject for submission to the conference. This was carried. SUBSIDIES ON RATES, BETTER LEGISLATION REQUIRED. Mr. W. Fraser, M.P. (Lako County) moved: "That all local bodies should be classified in the order of: (1) Their requirements for assistance in forming and maintaining roads. (2) The annual rate in the -J! levied by them. (3) The ■area of Crown or Native lands comprised therein which yield little and in some instances, ub rates, yet necessitates expenditure in forming and maintaining the roads that run through such area. And that the Government subsidy to be paid to each such class of local bodies should ' be based on these three factors." Mr. Fraser said tho fact that the conference was -mooting could bo taken a3 somo indication that new local government legislation was wanted, and the conference could very, well submit suggestions to the Government. It were wisest, therefore, to deal more with principles than with details. The principle of tho remit standing in his name was one of classification. Whatever system they adopted in the future for granting revenue to local bodies, he felt confident there would have to bo some classification. ' Mr. Pcarce (Patca) seconded tho motion. He thought the conference should' urge upon the Government to have an alteration mado this session in the legislation affecting local body subsidies. The matter was briefly debated, and then a committee, equally representative of each island, with tho president as chairman, was set up to frame a comprehensive resolution covering all the remits relating to subsidies on r-ales. AUCTIONEERS' FEES. -HOW TO BE DISTRIBUTED. ' Mr. Hockly (Kiwitea) moved: "That all stock auctioneers' license fees be equally divided between tho local bodies having control of tho districts in which tho auctioneers do business." Mr. J. norrcll (Rangiora) pointed out that auctioneers travelled so much about the country that it would be impossible to equally divide the fees. If the Hospital and Charitablo Aid Boards were made the recipients of tho fees and licenses it would'be subscribing to a common fund to which they all subscribed. He moved, and Mr. Riddle (Weber) seconded (as an amendment), that the fees and licenses be divided amongst tho Hospital and Charitable Aid Boards. Opinion seemed to bo fairly evenly divided. Mr. T. R. Gillingham (Mackenzie Comity), who had a remit dealing with the samo matter, said that if "a place of business" were more clearly defined in the Act it would get over tha difficulty. He had learned from the Hon. D. Buddo that the intention of the Act last session had been to constitute saleyards places of business. But the legal view of the Act bad proved this intention at fault. Therefore all they required to do now was to urgo tho Government to remedy the defect. All his county desired was that tho borough councils should have tho fees of the auctioneers doing business in the boroughs, but that the fees of stock auctioneers should go to the county counThe amendment was carried by 35 votes The remaining remits dealing with the matter .were withdrawn. COUNTIES ACT.

VARIOUS AMENDMENTS WANTED. Jlr. J. Lambio (Ashburton County) moved :— "That in counties where water-race systems prevail for irrigation and stock supply, no subdivision of counties shall take place except on a petition of the majority of. ratepayers within the existing county. This was carried. Mr. G. V. Pcarce, M.P. (Patca County), moved: — "That the Government should not a<reo to so many new counties being constituted, but that fair areas ft counties should prevail, having in view community of interests boundaries to bo adjusted to suit interest's- and geographical features. Mr. Pearce said that if the creation of counties continued at the same ratio as in tho pasl lew years the old county system would be quite destroyed, there seemed lo be a. unanimous idra. that, there wevo ton raanv local bodies in existence. (Hear, hear.) The rrime Minister three years ago had agreed to go into _the matter, but new counties had still been coming into' existence. . . Mr. D. Gilchrist (Southland) said the multiplication of counties was becoming a curse to 'the Dominion. . Mr. W. C. Dudley (Egmont) said it had been found in the case of his county that the working was more economical as the result of division. The motion was carried. The Ashburton County (Mr. J. Lambie) moved:— "That no new county be formed unless of a rateable value of (say) .£2,000,000." After discussion the motion was carried. The Murchison County Council (Jlr. J. Rait) moved to "Amend the Counties Act to enable a newly-constituted county to borrow to pay off the liability taken over from the other county or counties." —Carried. Jlr. li. K. Simpson (Rangitikei) moved: "That powers be given to the councils of a borough, town council, ! and a county, whose boundaries are contiguous, to alter such boundaries by mutual consent in tho same manner that tho councils of two adjacent counties are empowered Co amend the county boundaries."—Carried. Jlr. Rait (Murchison) moved-.— "That, it he Mnade clearer on the question of voting power where the syslem of rating on the unimproved value obtains."—Carried. Tho cnnl'cicu'.c adjourned until 9,30 u.,.ai. to-day.