John Cookson Local Government History and ‘centralisation thesis’ has long warped New Zealanders’ A understanding of the growth and development of the New Zealand state. ‘Unbridled power’, to use Geoffrey Palmer’s Localism phrase, is accepted as the end chapter of a process that began with the abolition of the provincial governments that set Abstract the country on a course of unmitigated The received view of state development in New Zealand is that the centralism (Palmer, 1987). New Zealand in 1876, said Michael Bassett, ‘abandoned abolition of the ‘provincial system’ in 1876 set in motion the inexorable the possibility of a decentralised structure’ rise of centralised authority. The counter thesis presented in this – perhaps an unsurprising judgement article argues that until about 1940 central politicians, irrespective from one who as minister presided over a sweeping reorganisation of local of party, were consistently engaged in empowering rather than government (Bassett, 1998, p.66). In this diminishing local government. There was ultimate respect for the history of the rise and rise of the central idea of local self-government; therefore, in colonial society, of local state, Vogel, Seddon and the Liberals, and the first Labour government stand as the control of local development. This independence weakened only as most illustrious names in the pantheon. technological change rendered ‘small’ local government increasingly Julius Vogel, for example, is revered in the New Oxford History of New Zealand as the inefficient and unable to meet new challenges and opportunities, politician who instigated heavy investment particularly with respect to highways, housing and welfare. in railways, roads and telegraph lines with Keywords centralisation, self-government, counties, boroughs, the result that ‘central government now emerged as a powerful engine driving infrastructure, municipalisation economic initiatives and social change’ (Byrnes, 2009, p.117). The Liberals, for John Cookson is Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Canterbury. Since retirement over ten years ago he has been working on a comprehensive history of local government in New Zealand their part, have been forever associated to 1940. His first attempt at an overview was in the New Zealand Journal of History, 41 (2), October with ‘state experiments’ and Labour with 2007. ‘state socialism’. Policy Quarterly – Volume 15, Issue 2 – May 2019 – Page 19 Local Government History and Localism It is undeniable that the colonial state enunciated three ‘principles’ with respect the key reform by conservatives and played an important part in funding and to local bodies: that they ‘should be left as socialists alike, and in the first instance it organising colonisation, and that as time free as possible from central control’; that was taken up seriously by the George went on it expanded into an authority that they should be empowered as far as was Forbes-led coalition from 1931.6 Labour projected itself into most areas of society advantageous; and that they should have shared conservative beliefs to the full that and the economy. But what is absent in the the greatest possible financial independence. local government needed to be strengthened, present historiography is any worthwhile In 1889 a parliamentary committee not left in a condition where Wellington consideration of the actualities of the concluded that for ‘decentralisation’ to be would have to keep bailing it out of its central–local government relationship. For effective the existing number of local responsibilities. However, it tried a more a start, as might be expected, that bodies needed to be pared down to the tactical approach instead of attempting a relationship was strongly shaped by British ‘four large cities’ and not more than 16 general, all-encompassing reform in one constitutional norms which upheld the other ‘districts’.4 bold effort. The Local Government idea of local self-government: that central Seddon and Ward have been totally (Amalgamation Schemes) Bill of 1936 government, generally ignorant of local misconceived as out-and-out centralists. invited local bodies to frame their own circumstances, was better advised to leave Both tackled the fragmentation of local schemes and, failing that, imposed a the localities to their own devices regarding government head-on. Seddon wanted to requirement on them to act out of ‘public matters of most concern to them, while dissolve all existing authorities (12 named interest’ considerations, with contentious Parliament, cabinet and the bureaucracy municipalities excepted) and load their cases subject to review by a special concentrated on matters like defence which responsibilities onto about a quarter of commission. For another half a century required national organisation and their number. His scheme would have there were further attempts in the same vein using an independent commission to receive representations and conduct a The New Zealand colony closely general review of local authority areas and followed British legislative practice functions, always with the aim of reversing a history of continued fractionalisation, in constituting local government, but but only by consent. The long-sought radical restructuring finally occurred in making exercise of any powers conferred 1988–89 when the Crown armed itself with to a large degree permissive. overriding powers and did not balk at using them (Bush, 1995). The failure of central government to hold and turn back the proliferation of national resources. So in 19th-century merged all but the ‘Board of Education and local bodies says everything about deeply Britain, local authorities with very extensive the Harbour Board into a single elected embedded localism. The demand for local powers made their appearance.1 The New Council for each area, a large County in self-government proved insatiable. Even Zealand colony closely followed British rural districts, and a Borough elsewhere’ before a ‘county system’ replaced the old legislative practice in constituting local (Hamer, 1974, p.48). Ward proposed ‘provincial system’, the localism of ‘districts’ government, but making exercise of any sweeping reform in 1912. He revived the had been accepted as unassailable. Road powers conferred to a large degree idea of ‘provincial councils’ that would boards multiplied after 1860. There were permissive. Thus, the original Counties Act assume responsibility for hospitals, about 300 of them in 1876 and this number in 1876 left it to the counties themselves to charitable aid, public health, education, only gradually diminished; there were still decide whether or not they wanted to bring harbours, main roads and bridges, rivers 231 in 1900 and 129 in 1914.7 They existed the Act into full operation.2 Eden county, and drainage, and water supply.5 The 24 by ratepayer demand. Provincial authorities, adjacent to Auckland, and Peninsula in councils would have functioned as regional and the colonial government once they had Otago never had effective county authorities: ‘big’ local government with a gone, recognised that self-government was government, devolving local responsibilities vengeance. a principle that could not be ignored and to the numerous road boards.3 More than Labour came to power in 1935, and to one that in the colonial situation embraced a few councils were content to rate this day remains equally misunderstood as the common-sense proposition that locals minimally or not at all and apportion any pursuing an uncompromising centralist knew their needs better than outsiders. other revenue to the boards. agenda. Indeed, Labour can be said to have Vogel as colonial treasurer in 1870 decided The idea of local self-government held adopted cross-party and wider public to channel grants to them as part of his unimpeachable authority. That this was so concern in the crisis of the Depression that development policy. His Payments to is evident in the consistent policy of local New Zealand’s system of local government Provinces Act specifically funded the empowerment that central government was over-localised, outdated, uneconomic, boards and their roading projects. Such a followed, administration after inefficient and already showing its measure inevitably produced a rush of administration. Harry Atkinson, the vulnerability to any determined policy of board creations. Hawke’s Bay added 23 dominant politician of the 1880s, centralisation. ‘Amalgamation’ was seen as between 1873 and 1885. Page 20 – Policy Quarterly – Volume 15, Issue 2 – May 2019 New Zealand, it was noted in the 1930s, while making 57 additions to the county street lighting, water supply and, sometimes with a population the size of Birmingham’s list.9 As for boroughs, the 1886 Municipal late in the piece, night soil and rubbish or Glasgow’s had almost 700 separate Corporations Act merely stipulated that a removal at public expense. There was a councils and boards.8 While in recent times place should occupy not more than nine progression towards shingled or metalled the number of road boards had been much square miles, have a prospective annual streets, gas lighting, reticulated high- reduced, town boards, electric power income of at least £250 and make its case pressure water, underground sewerage and boards, fire boards, land drainage and river by a petition supported by three-fifths of public abattoirs. The Second Industrial boards and rabbit boards more than made the ‘resident householders’. Under the 1900 Revolution, whose key elements were oil