I notice people here whose minds seem to be greatly occupied about the extension of the franchise. I think it is a little late in the day now to talk about extending the franchise. Some people here seem not to realise that we have already many public representatives in the public boards of the country who are only 21 years of age. But if they are only 21 years of age they have some sense of responsibility, for the reason that they have to be ratepayers in order to become qualified of being public representatives under existing legislation. But having that sense of responsibility, I dare say their first consideration is what any scheme is going to cost themselves and their electors as ratepayers. That is what they have to consider when they are asked to give their assent to the expenditure of money. They do not allow any whim or wild idea to run away with their better judgment when they are voting for the spending of money. That is because they know the consequence of this to themselves, to their neighbours and to the people they represent, the people who reposed their confidence in them and look to them to safeguard their interests. These are matters that weigh with these people, I have no doubt.
I speak as one who has been a public representative for some 29 or 30 years. I do not speak with that want of responsibility recently displayed by the Minister for Local Government. I think I am correct in saying that he stated, in some place in the South, not-withstanding that the rate there was 29/- or 30/- in the £, that it was not an excessive rate because the people got good service. This extension of the franchise will, I think, apply to urban areas as well as in rural districts. In some areas a painful situation has been created for the ratepayers by reason of the fact that irresponsible people have been allowed into public authorities as representatives of the people, whether with the knowledge of the Minister for Local Government or otherwise, I do not know. It should be within his knowledge if he is properly informed and, as the responsible head of local government, he should be informed of the fact. Since certain alterations have taken place there has not been that careful administration, and that careful investigation, that should always take place as to who public representatives are, whether they are really qualified or whether they are not qualified. In the town in which I live we have a very substantial rate. I am now referring to an urban area. I think the rateable valuation of the town, some short time ago, was between £10,000 and £11,000. The total rateable responsibility, within the past two years, of certain representatives of that urban area, was something like £34. Doubtless, I may be reminded of this, and rightly so, that the people repose their confidence in those representatives; they gave them a mandate and authority to carry on in their behalf. I wish the people who gave them that authority every luck. I know they have had to pay for it; they have been faced with certain consequences as a result of their own lack of consideration.
As regards derating, I have heard it said on many occasions when derating was in the offing that the farmers might look forward with confidence, and that they would be relieved of all responsibility. In such circumstances, if the farmers were relieved of all responsibilities, I feel that there should be a complete change in the methods of local government. I say that for this reason, that if a man has no responsibility, if it does not touch his pocket directly or indirectly, he loses all sense of proportion; he feels that he is a free lance, that he has that freedom which enables him to put his hand into his neighbour's pocket, that he can spend lavishly at the expense of his neighbours. If we had derating there should be a different method of administration. It should be from the central authority, because otherwise the consequences would be extraordinary. That is why I urge that for representation you should have some rateable qualification; you should always aim at keeping before the minds of those who represent the people a sense of their responsibility to the people and a sense of their responsibility to themselves. I think it is fairly democratic when you have a franchise that entitles a man of 21 years of age to become a public representative on an urban council or a county council, but the day you take leave of the rateable qualification so as to enable a man to become a public representative you will have to view the situation from a different standpoint. Otherwise, you will have one man vieing with another to see who can be most successful in spending money lavishly at the expense of the general public.
The Minister has a very grave responsibility, and I hope he realises it. I hope he realises it is not good local government, good administration, to say to public representatives that it is a matter of indifference what the rate is provided there are good services. I believe in good services; I have never stood between the public and good service, but I believe in the public having that good service at a proper price. We have heard it stated here with regard to the agricultural grant that it represents 50 per cent. of the amount of money expended by local public bodies. The Minister will recollect—I am sure he has some responsibility for inflicting it on the public— that in 1933 the agricultural grant was reduced by £448,000. In the county that I represent, both locally and here, the rates had to be increased by 1/4 in the £ in consequence of the reduction of the grant. I do not know that any effort has been made by the Minister, or anybody on his benches, to explain to the public the justification for withdrawing the £448,000.
