RIVAL SCHEMES.

Patea Mail, 23 July 1881, Page 3

RIVAL SCHEMES.

It is now clear that the reform of Ltcal Government is the question of the day. The elections will be fonght on it, if the present battle of parties results in defeat of Ministers. But this question involves the larger problem of centralism versus local control. Ministers are making a stand for centralism, and on that they are certain to have popular opinion against them when the appeal is made to electors, as it must be in any case. Ministers can seize the golden opportunity for timely concession, or they can do the other thing. It is to be hoped they will let common sense prevail, and not be so stubborn as to resist every suggestion from friends in the House or out of it. Four schemes are before the House. (1) Major Atkinson proposes to assist local bodies by rating Crown and Native lands ; by giving easy loans in aid new works on condition of special rate being levied; by treating County Councils as consulting bodies in lieu of Land Boards ; by permitting local bodies to amalgamate under present optional powers ; and that is all. Subsidies are not to be given. Borrowing is conditional on rating. The Crown and Native lands rate will be a trifling assistance, even in this district. The initiative of new works for developing districts is not to lie with, the locality, but local energy is still to be suppressed by centralism. (2) Sir George Grey’s scheme proposes Provincialism under the name of District Councils, combining several Connties as one district. These are to make “ bye-laws,” a petty term which seems ill chosen. District Councils are to regulate all matters except Customs duties, shipping dues, postal.and telegraph business, bankruptcy law, inheritance of property, marriage law, primary education, creating distinctions of race, Volunteer defence, Crown lands, superior courts of law, and some other colonial matters. The main feature of this scheme is that the Governor shall grant to each District Council a land endowment “ sufficient to provide for all requisites for the trade and commerce thereof, and for securing its welfare, and the comfort, health, advancement, and knowledge of the people; such endowments to be from time to time applied as far as possible in lien of and to avoid the imposition of rates and taxes.” Some critics object to this scheme as visionary. The machinery is nothing but a restoration of Provincialism, which bad some merits but more defects. Harbor works are not treated as colonial matters, but would be under local control. The working of railways and the apportionment of railway indebtedness are not referred to in the bill; but they are ticklish points in such a scheme. The inference is that railway construction and management would be localised. The visionary part is the last danse of the bill, proposing land endowment sufficient to make rates and taxes unnecessary. This land is so bo leased, and

the rents from each are to cover all costs of local and general government. The scheme would work only on paper, for different districts would get very different revenues, owing to varying causes and to fluctuations. Bach a revenue could not be raised from Crown land until much money had been expended in opening each local estate for profitable occupation. . While localities were waiting for that occupation, they would have no rents from their estate to go on with. While the grass was growing the steed would be—where ?

(3) Mr Ormond’s scheme is not fully divulged, but the outline is this. County Councils are useless bodies. Road Boards should be merged into Shire Boards—that is, two or three Boards rolled in one. Crown Lands should be dealt with by a local body, not by the Government; the people to have a voice in the management, in lieu of nominated Land Boards. Various minor duties of the State should be transferred to Shire Boards, but Mr Ormond doubts whether they can manage local railways. Such is this shadowy scheme. It appears safe and sensible as far as it goes, but Mr Ormond’s outline requires filling in with detail. He makes a compromise between Road Boards and County Councils, and he declares for popular control in opening lands for settlement. Both propositions are moderate and safe, except that local control of waste lands needs some central check against unwise activity in putting too much land into the market at once.

(4) Mr Saunders’s scheme is to divide each Island into four Provinces; giving to each Province a superintendent and four councillors. County Councils ''should he abolished. The Property Tax to be doubled, leaving two-thirds in the road district in which it is raised. Local rates to be abolished. Tax all unimproved land that is capable of improvement, to prevent its being held for speculation ; this latter tax to go to the Provincial Council "for general works apart from the maintenance o roads. This scheme is simply one for bursting up large properties, and squeezing speculators in land. Probably the details which remain to be explained are its best points. Out of these four schemes by leading statesmen, which is most workable ? Why not take the best points from each ? No use saying a parly must stick to its programme. The country requires the best scheme, and would say so at the elections.