South Canterbury Times, TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2580, 28 June 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1881.

County Councils and Road Boards are anxiously awaiting the proposals of the Ministry in the matter of local government reform. We are of opinion that it will be altogether a question of financing, in other words affording substantial subsidies to the local bodies. If those can be secured there will be an end to the grumbling for a time. Nothing is so effectual as money in keeping local government machinery going. We allude to money accruing otherwise than by rates. There is one thing, however,on which the majority of people are perfectly agreed, and that is, there must be a great diminution in the number of local bodies. The late debate in Parliament afforded little insight into the actual views of members on the question, Mr Ormond delivered the most remarkable speech during the debate. The Member for Clive is one of the most prominent politicians of the colony. He is an effective speaker, and an able administrator. To understand his present attitude it is necessary to remark that no one was more zealous for the abolition of the provinces. His views have changed immensely of late. The Abolitionist is now turned into a Provincialist. He aims at being the leader of the party which is to restore the old order of things. His most recent utterance is highly interesting. He spoke strongly against the present system of centralisation. He said the first step at improvement must be decentralization. It has never been made very clear what this centralisation is—that invisible power which it is alleged trammels the actions of the local bodies. There was a local government Conference held at Wellington about a fortnight back, and no light was thrown on the subject. As pointed out in a previous issue, the Conference simply asked that the General Government should provide more money. In fact it was tantamount to soliciting an extension of the system of centralization. lv is idle to expect that the power ■which votes the money should not have a voice in the manner of its disposal. There is no considerable party in this colony in favor of centralization. All Ministries would be heartily glad to

got rid of responsibility in connection with local government bodies. It is the latter who force themselves upon the attention of the central authorities. The Legislature would rejoice exceedingly if some means could be devised whereby the local bodies would trouble it no more. Mr Ormond said it was the duty of Parliament to make permanent provision for those bodies. The duly is questionable. It may, however, be expedient for the Legislature to act liberally. The local government bodies are too powerful to be ignored. It is to be feared that the only generally satisfactory way of dealing with the question will be by subsidies out of the Consolidated Revenue. There are numerous districts in the colony where there is no land revenue, no way of raising funds, except by the imposition of rates and a few small contributions of license fees. It is sheer nonsense to talk of decentralization when at the same time the General Government is expected to do the financing. To revert to Mr Ormond’s speech. He is of opinion that the county system has not been a success, and that it would be unfair to continue a name associated with failure. Perhaps Mr Ormend would like the title of provincial districts better. It is more imposing. But then a very large section of colonists are of opinion that the provinces were far greater failures than the counties. The manner in which the former dealt with the land should hold them in execration for generations yet unborn (to use Sir George Grey’s favorite expression) in New Zealand. It was bad enough in South Canterbury, but the province of Hawke’s Bay, of which Mr Ormond was for many years Superintendent, is the most “ shocking example ” of the wholesale alienation of the Crown lands without furthering the settlement of the country. The counties may bo associated with failure, but not with disgrace. We are in accord with Mr Ormond when he says that the Government should define the districts larger than they are at present, always keeping in view the fact of community of interest. They should also have more powers. Old politicians mast have been surprised to hear Mr Ormond pronounce against nominated Boards, and argue that the powers of the Waste Land Boards should be vested in District Boards. Mr Ormond refrains from mentioning County Councils and Road Boards. The former name is good enough, and is sufficiently comprehensive. We have always advocated that the control and disposal of the lands of the Crown should be placed in the hands of an elective body. The Waste Land Boards of the colony are cliques who care not one straw for the progress of settlement. They are under the influence of the land monopolists. The sympathy and interests of the members of the Boards are invariably with those who seek to acquire large estates. They have always been against the “ small ” man. Reform is slow in the land laws of New Zealand. Most of the public estate has already been alienated in large blocks. The mischief, doubtless, will be completed before the nominated Waste Land Boards are swept away. The Member for Clive goes to the full extent for the revival of provincialism. He would place the control of the railways in District Boards. That proposition is so manifestly impracticable that it could only have been made by a representative from the North Island, where the railways so far are only isolated fragments. To properly manage the lines in these parts, the District Board would have to be elected by all Canterbury and Otago (including Southland). There would be little objection to all the lines in the South Island being placed under a Board of Commissioners whose appointment would be vested in the public. In that case there would be an end to the uniform tariff, and the people of the South would no longer be saddled with having to pay the interest on the North Island lines, Mr Ormond expressed an opinion that the power of the Education Boards should be vested in the local bodies. Any system would be better than the present. The mode of electing the Boards is a farce. The same might truly be said of the School Committees, However, the members of the latter as a rule exercise the feeble authority conferred on them with intelligence. That much can scarcely be said for the more pretentious bodies. There were other matters dealt with by the “ leader of the new Middle Party.” But for the present we will refrain from comment, as he will, doubtless, speak more explicitly after the Colonial Treasurer brings down his proposals.