“LESS EXPENSIVE”

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 33, 2 May 1927, Page 9

“LESS EXPENSIVE”

MUNICIPAL SERVICES CENTRAL CONTROL URGED WATER COMMISSION EVIDENCE Centralisation of municipal services for the purpose of keeping- clown administrative costs, was urged by Mr. Lewis Lady, a member of the Auckland City Council, at this morning’s sitting of the Auckland Water Commission. In regard to municipal administration Mr. JEady said that he was strongly of the opinion that the setting up of a number of local bodies was unsound, not only from a financial point of view, but also as regarded administration. The duplication of staffs and expensive plants was also instanced as a needless expense arising out of a “scattering” of municipal control. A strong argument in favour of centralised control, said Mr. Eady, was the fact that the Glasgow City Council was able every year to pay over large sums of money, being profits derived from the utility services to the general fund of the city. That procedure, he said, was also followed by the Auckland City Council, which closely followed English municipal government regarded by authorities to be the best form of city government in the world. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Instancing the unnecessary administrative costs incurred throughout the district, Mr. Eady supplied the following administrative costs in connection with the various boroughs—Avondale 18.13, Mt. Albert 10.58, Mt. Eden 13.10, Newmarket 11.31, Onehunga 13.30, Otahuhu 21.82. Average" 14.7. The adiminstrative cost of the City Council, said Mr. Eady, was 3.33 per cent. To Mr. Rogerson: The only argument in favour of a water board was expediency. He considered that existing conditions called for central control, which could be brought about by the outside bodies coming into the city. Referring at a later stage to the figures supplied by Mr. Eady, Mr. S. Gray, Town Clerk of Mt. Eden, said that by being able to charge most of the expenditure to various departments it was possible for the City Council to considerably reduce its administrative costs in comparison with outside boroughs who were not able to do so. “The proof of the pudding,” concluded Mr. Gray, “is in the eating. The Auckland City rates are much higher than in the outside boroughs. MR. JOHNSTONE’S ADDRESS Summing up the evidence given during the sitting of the Commission, Mr. A. H. Johnstone (Auckland City Council) said that he considered that it was established beyond doubt that there was a water supply available in Auckland to meet all requirements. Mr. Gray’s figures in regard to the Lake Taupo scheme, said Mr. Johnstone, were hopelessly discredited, and in the early stages of the commission it was wisely abandoned. At the same time said Mr. Johnstone, it had to be remembered that that scheme had been placed before the ratepayers in pamphlet form. He contended that those figures were faulty and inaccurate and that those who had drawn them up could not be accepted as reliable critics of the Waitakere scheme, a scheme they knew even less about than Taupo. Referring to the question of centralised control, Mr. Johnstone contended that the time would shortly arrive when the outlying local bodies could no longer afford to remain out of the city. Due provision had been made for increased consumption of water and the city would welcome the outside boroughs with open arms. (Proceeding).