The Dominion. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1912. LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1370, 22 February 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1912. LOCAL GOVERNMENT

A good many people will remember that in our issue of December 2 last we gave in detail the long list of the broken promises and empty professions that make up the story* of "Liberalism's" connection with local government reform. In 1893 Mr. Seddon held out a prospect of local government reform, being undertaken in the_ following.year; but nothing came of it. In 1895 the Governor's Speech said that "public opinion demand'ed" that the problem should be faced "without further delay." A measuro dealing with the question was promised in 1896, and again in 1897, and again-in 1899. In 1900, in 1904, in 1905, in 1908, in 1907, in 1908, and in 1011 the "Liberal" Government renewed its promises to push ahead with a scheme of reform, and broke the promise every time. This discreditable record makes a very bad introduction to the enormous Bill that the Prime Minister presented to-the House on Tuesday, and we may safely assume that he is just as sincere as he was when he fooled the public In the years that are past. The Bill is in itself good in principle; it does propose a system under which local self-government can be made to develop into a real thing. Even although it leaves a yery large share of final authority in the hands of the Government, it goes a long way towards admitting the right of local communities to control local affairs and provide for local wants—a right which has been the object of a persistent and progressive assault bv the "Liberal ,1 Administration. We gave a short explanation of the Bill yesterday, and we may say here that roughly speaking, it provides for the establishment of. 24 provinces, whicli will administer provincial business, and which will supersede the existing hospital, education, harbour, road, river, and drainage districts. The kernel of the Bill is given in the two following paragraphs of the attached memorandum: Tho division of powers between Provincial Councils on thn one hand and UoroiiKli Councils and County Councils on Hie other is based on the principle that all powers which nan bv jidetimitcly exercised within 11k- limits of a sitiflo borough ur a f-uifflr- county are vested in the IJorouKli and (.'oiint.v Councils, while tho powers which for their effective exercise require Iα he extended beyond the limits of a Miiglo county or borough, arc intrusted to the Provincial Council. Tin) chief functions of the Provincial Councils Tolnto to tho following matters — (ft) Hospitals, (l>) charitable aid, (c) public health; (d) education, (e) harbours, (f) main roads and bridges, (;;) rivers, (M drainage and water supply. If the Bill were a first step towards the reduction of the General Government's powers to a minimum, wn should welcome it. But of course it is not. Tho broad principle of the Bill, namely, the re-establishment of a form of provincial authority in provincial affairs, is (|iiilc unobjectionable: but what is objectionable is that sUiiiliiiM' l- ksolf the Bill would

not cut to the root of the evil of Executive autocracy. It is not suggested in the Bill* that the Public Works Estimates, as we have known them under the "Liberal" regime, will become a thing of the past! Ko scheme of local government and public works reform will be of much value that does not end for ever the. concern of Parliament with the dotails of local expenditure. There must be an end of the power of the Government—whatever Government may hold office—to allot public works of all kinds, including railways, just as it pleases. Yα: while the Government possesses this power, it will really be the master of Parliament, and the majority in Parliament will normally consist of those undesirable men who, elected simply to fight for doles, find that subservience to the Ministry is an essential of success, and accordingly are unfit to share in the general work of legislation. Had not the excesses of "Liberalism" been so gross as to disgust even those who in past years had been prepared to swallow anything provided their districts received the desired doles, the present Parliament would have been like the last, and local government reform would have been just what itwas in 1893 and in every year since, namely, the subject of a' false promise.

Times, however, have changed. The tide of reform mnst be taken at the flood. Half measures must not be considered, and will not be tolerated. The Government's introduction of the Local Government Bill is in itself a confession of past failure, ar> admission of the truth of the Reform party's criticisms, a surrender to the force of an awakened public conscience. It will not be overlooked that in confessing, or partially confessing, the soundness of the principle that neither Parliament nor itrservant the Government should concern itself with details of local administration and local affairs, the Government has admitted the principle of the other great reforms ithas always opposed : the reform of the Civil Service and of tb? railways administration.