LOCAL GOVERNMENT MATTERS

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1446, 22 May 1912, Page 6

LOCAL GOVERNMENT MATTERS

The address of the Minister for Internal Affairs to the local bodies delegates who have assembled here to consider the Local Government Reform Bill_ contained a good many points of interest and embodied soma useful information. It was- also remarkable for some curious lapses and surprisingly erroneous ideas. No one, \ve think, will 'find much fault with what Mr. Russell sets clown as the essentials of sound local government: (1) Simplicity of form and method; (2) efficiency as regards local and district necdß; (3) economy of administration; (4) sound and assured finance; (5) capacity for promoting local development; (6) power to group contiguous districts for common purposes. The difficulty and the differences of opinion arise when attempt is made to give practical effect to the reform which these "essentials" render necessary in our system of local government. As we anticipated both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Internal Affairs made it quite clear to the delegates present yesterday that they are by no means wedded to the Bill they have placed before the Conference and they displayed a wise discretion in adopting this attitude. However good the intentions which prompted the measure may have been the admissions now made by Ministers themselves, as well as the protests which have come forward from all parts of the country, prove very clearly that tho effort made to bring about the needed reform would, if given effect to, have produced an infinitely worse state of things than that which at present exists. By way of excuse apparently for tho failure of the' Government in this respect Mr. Russell professed to believe that tho outcry for local government, reform was some vague thing which no one had ever attempted to offer any definite suggestions on.

Tor a. number of years, he said, there had been a loud outcry for reform in local government, but tlioso who had been most active in raising tho cry had not been preciso in their statement of what they considered was wanting. Thero had simply been a general outcry for reform; but when the speakers, had been asked to state in what directions they considered reform could most effectively ba introduced tho oracles had been silent. What had those who have cried out for local government reform meant? Had they wonted fewer local bodies with enlarged powers, and cheaper, administration? Or had it been mero'iy a desiro to get higher subsidies from tho State? This is really, very amusing when it is borne in mincl that as far back as 18913 the then Prime Minister expressed the opinion that, a general measure of reform was much needed and that he hoped to bring down a Bill on the subject-the succeeding session. In 1895, '9G, '97, '99, 1900, '04, '05, 'OG, '07. '08, Local Government Jieform Bills were promised in the Governor's Speech in each of the years named. In 1900 it was specifically stated that the reform intended would go in the direction of reducing the number of local authorities; giving greater power to those remaining and ranking provision for an assured finance. In 1905, in addition to the reforms stated above, it was intimated that the proposals in the Bill to be brought down would have for their object the relieving of Parliament and Government of certain public works thus enabling more time to lie devoted bv Parliament to larger questions. Mi:. Russell's predecessors in ofiice apparently did not lack definite ideas as io the direction reform should take and they were not so indiscreet as to suggest that the purpose behind those urging the necessity for improvement was merely a, desire to get higher eubpidirs from tho The Min- [ istor was equally, astray, ia his r«-

fcrence to an outcry against votes on roads and bridges.

There lias been ail outcry in recent years, he said, against votes for niacin and bridges. What is tlm remedy? What substitute can be proposed? Is it to slop making such grants altogether and throw on tho settlers of tlm back-blocks tho cost of making the roads loading to their homes. 1 think you will agree with mo that Iho State owes a responsibility to the pioneers who have pushed settlement further and further back.

It is so obviously the duty of the State to provide proper access to the lands it throws open for settlement that it would be absurd to argue the question. But Ml!, liusseix is wrong in stating that any outcry has ever been raised against votes for roads and bridges for the hack-blocks' settler. The outcry lias been against the mcilind of distributing the votes or grants and the nr.fjbxl to spend c-ven the money voted. We do not propose, however, to go into that question just now. ltather would we express our approval of the Minister's suggestion that a certain sum of money should be set aside each year for the development and roading of the backblocks, the distribution of this money to be placed in the hands of the Local Government Board. We are not enamoured of this Local Government Board and would prefer some other distributing body such as we have from time to time advocated entirely fice frorn_ political influences; but any step in the direction of reducing the risk of public funds being expended to buy political support deserves favourable consideration.