HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 995, 14 July 1883, Page 2

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Friday, July 13, The House met at 2 30.

The following Bills were introduced and read the first time :—To Amend the Registration of Electors Act, 1879, to Amend the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881 (Mr Fyke).

DECENTRALISATION. The adjourned debate on Mr Montgomery’s resolution was resumed by Mr Shephard. —Ho said that although ho did not agree with the resolutions, especially in. view of the fact that they ameunted to a Ministerial question, there was much in them with which he was quite ready to acquiesce. The present discontent was fostered by the dual system of Counties and Road Boards. Where, the latter had been abolished the county system worked best. It was therefore ne% cessary that the position of these two bodies should be more definitely defined, so as to prevent them from clashing together. He was likewise in favor of the extension of the powers of the County Councils. If the resolutions meant anything they meant the separation of the Islands. It was a question of money, and but for that they would not have heard anything about this cry. The South had got well supplied with public works at the expense of the colony, and now the question came about raising money for. similar works in the North Island. Nothing worse or more unfair to New Zealand could be devised than the scheme of government sketched out by Mr Montgomery, Mr Thomson, Mr Macandrew,' and men of that following. If the third resolution came to the vote, which he did not think would be the case, he would move as an amendment that the words “ including public works ” be left out. Mr Watt did not believe that if they would they possibly could carry out the resolutions. He deprecated the present system of local government. Either they should abolish the Road Boards or the Counties.

Mr Duncan spoke in support of the re solutions.

The debate was interrupted at 5.30.

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30, The debate was resumed by

Mr Duncan, who narrated a number of local grievances as evidence of central maladministration.

Mr Ivess spoke in favor- of extended poweps being given to the local bodies, and the number of counties reduced. He was in favor of restoring provincialism. But for the fact of the resolutions having been made a party question he felt convinced that their spirit, at all events, would have received a large support. If an appeal were made to the colony he had no doubt the resolutions would be upheld in the main. Referring to the Canterbury compact, he said the Canterbury members were determined the West Coast railway should be made, and if this Government was not prepared to undertake it some other Government could. He was prepared to give the Government a fair and reasonable support, but he blamed them for having made this a party question. Let the issue be what it may he hoped this debate would have the effect of bringing the question under the notice of the people of this colony, and that a sufficient number would be returned to affirm this principle in the next Parliament.

Mr Wynn Williams said the main charge against the Government, in its centralising tendencies, seemed to be that it had failed to construct a culvert or provide a tarpaulin for a truck. That waa the burden of their complaints. Th-’y had been told not to go back to the institutions of the past, but he maintained that if they adopted a resolution like this they would be forced to go back to thesi institutions and ascertain how they had worked. The constitution enunciated by .Mr Montgomery was a mere myth ; it was like the mortal remains of certain unknown animals in fables. It has neither head nor tail, no body and no legs. In a word, it had nothing at all. It was simply an insult to their intelligence to put such a thing as this before them. Mr Montgomery had told them that the subsidies and endowments were the great bait for abolition. That was a very different tale from whit he held at the time of abolition. His story then was that aver since he read the Constitution Act he felt satisfied that provincialism was not the proper form of Government they should aim at. Wh it was the case under provincialism in Canterbury? They were surrounded by all the pomp of State; they had even a i-.ergeant-at-Arms, a poor follow with one leg, whose effiuts to follow in the train of superintendental state were something highly amusing, and indeed ho had no hesitation in saying that this unfortunate fellow with the one leg had a great deal to do with bringing provincial institutions into ridicule. _ On one occasion another unfortunate with a lame leg, and in a state of intoxication, made his way into the Chamber. _ The sergeant immediately set about ejecting him, when the two fell on the floor, and, being unable to get up, the two with their crooked legs had both to be assisted out. That was “the last straw that broke the 1 camel’s h ick. From that hour provincial 1 institutions in Canterbury began to de- ; dine. After this escapade of Mr Montgomery’s his last pretension to the character of a statesman must inevitably fade away. He ventured to say that there < could be no centralism half so vexatious t as the petty fallacies and heart-burnings 1 engendered by provincialism. Alluding £ to °the Canterbury compact, he said Mr ( Holmes, who now attacked Ministers, was doing more than any other man to injure the prospects of the West Coast Railway. Mr Holmes at the meeting of the members moved a vote of thanks for the Premier for what had been promised. IVJr Holies —That is not so. Mr WyNN- ILL!ams- Despite what the hon member says, I maintain he was there and moved this vote of thanks. r

The Speaker— You must accept the lion member’s denial.

Mr Wynn-Williams—l say he did say a certain thing, and he denies it. I cannot accept his denial, knowing as I do that what I have stated is true. The Speaker—But you must accept his denial. Mr ‘ Wynn-Williams—Very well; I have now made my explanation. lam content to accept the explanation. In continuation ho said Westland would not be content with this compact. It would scorn the idea of joining with Canterbury, far less with Otago.

Mr Bracksn said that members on the other side had attempted to pooh-pooh these reaolu ions, but the fact was they would suit the country to its heart’s core if referred to the population. Under the existing circumstances he argued that it was plain New Zealand was made to be governed by a number of small federal states. As to the argument that it was bound to make laws for such trifling little states as was proposed to be constituted, he had to remind them that this was not alone a question of the present. It was a question of the future—a future when New Zealand’s population would not be counted by tens of thousands, but by millions.

Mr Huesthouse said there was nothing in this debate at the beginning, there was nothing in it up to the present, and he ventured to say there would be nothing in it at the end. They had had a newspaper extract read by the previous Speakerextracted from .what professed to be a great colonial paper. That article he noted had been written after these resolutions were tabled. Now, that was-nothing; that was merely public opinion making this would-be great newspaper, and not the newspaper leading public opinion. Any rag of a paper could do that. Why that was what the Nelson-newspapers did, and they were nothing. Had not the colony gone to the rescue of Auckland' in provincial days it would have bean, in as great a strait as Southland. Otago and Canterbury might have survived a few years, but even Otago would have had to give way before the run-riot conduct of the member for Port Chalmers he was Public Works Minister. They, s had too many bodies with badly defined duties. To remedy these was the ditty that rested on them. Discontent did exist, but he denied that it was general. .It was not discontent with the system but with the mode of administration of, that system. The House divided on Mr Montgomery’s first resolution existing system of central government has failed to realise the results' anticipated, and that the promises .and engagements made at the time of the' abolition of the provinces have not been fulfilled.’'—Ayes, 23 ; noes, 31. The House then divided on Mr Moss’s amendment.—Ayes, 19 ; noes, 38; The House divided on the remainder of the resolution.—Ayes, 24 ; noes, 34. The House adjourned 'at 1.25 a.-m.