LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Evening Star, Issue 22440, 10 September 1936, Page 8

LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

No one will contradict the Minister for Internal .Affairs (Hon. W. E, Parry) when he says that this country has too many local governing bodies, and that the whole system needs to be simplified and made cheaper by a reduction of their number. Any man who has any knowledge of public affairs would endorse the Ministerial judgment, probably with enthusiasm, provided the particular body of which he might happen to be a member was not marked for absorption in another. And if, without holding office, he was a resident of some town district or borough whose claim to a separate existence would not be recognised anywhere outside its borders, bis agreement might be accompanied by a \ like reservation. Local pride is apt to be strong, and pride in position stronger. For these reasons of human perversity there has been much more talk about the necessity for a reduction in the number of local bodies than action. The last Government might have appeared hot for it—for a time. For years it talked at intervals about setting up a commission to put the whole system on a proper footing. The commission was never appointed, and the subject was not mentioned in the manifesto with which it went to the elections. It was not mentioned, for that matter, in the rival party’s manifesto. The National Government did pass an Act, four years ago, to which reference will be made later, to deal with one fraction of the problem. But nothing was ever done under the Act. The Labour Government is resolved now on doing something. A mixture of persuasion and compulsion is to be its method. As Mr Savage and Mr Parry explain the measure which is now in preparation, local bodies will be encouraged to arrange for voluntary amalgamation where that is possible. Where it is desirable but not agreed to, the Minister of Internal Affairs will prepare a scheme for amalgamation, which will be referred to a special commission composed of a judge, an officer of the department, and a representative of the bodies concerned. The commission will perfect the scheme in regard to details, and it will be enforced by statute. The method is not original. It follows the general lines of the Coalition Government’s Act, the application of which was confined to hospital districts. The tribunal in that case was to consist of a magistrate or a magistrate and two experts. If the commission so advised the simplification that it recommended could be performed by Order in Council. Apparently the difficulties—or the unpopularity—of this procedure became more apparent with consideration. We do not recall that any commission under the Act was ever appointed. The Labour Government seeks now to apply like methods with a far wider range. It is a good object which it has in view. Its little finger may prove stronger than its predecessor’s loins, or the necessity for compulsion under its procedure may be lessened by its plan of giving increased powers to local governing bodies as they are reduced in number. “ There will really be less centralisation,” says Mr Savage, and that, also, is a move in the right direction. The Government has taken so many new powers to itself that it will be an improvement of balance—it may even be a necessity—for it to transfer others, though the prospect is not easily believable. It is a wise decision that “ no attempt will be made to rush the measure through the House, and ample time will be given for an expression of all interested opinion.”