The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalehbit. TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1883. The Decentralisation Debate.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 997, 17 July 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalehbit. TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1883. The Decentralisation Debate.

The results of the divisions which have taken place during the present session in the House of Representatives show that on all important questions the Government can command such a decided majority that the rejection of the decentralisation motion brought forward by Mr Montgomery was a foregone conclusion. But notwithstanding this fact, we should hesitate to declare that the past week has been wasted, as the question is one which demands ventilation, and the member for Akaroa is not to be condemned hastily for bringing it forward, even though he knew it must be defeated. The debate was on the whole decidedly the most important and most interesting that has taken place since Parliament opened, and there was almost an entire absence of that acrimony that so often characterises the speeches of members when a party question comes on for discussion. Mr Montgomery, indeed, deprecated the idea that the motion should be discussed in a party spirit, but the Government chose to consider it as tantamount to a vote of want of confidence, and had they been defeated they would no doubt have asked for a dissolution. This decision did not probably interfere with the proper ventilation of the subject at issue, although it may have made a difference when the division came to be taken. The present Parliament has unequivocally shown that it does not desire to see the Ministry ousted from their seats, but it by no means follows from this that those who voted against Mr Montgomery are satisfied with the system of Central Government as it now exists.

And now let us look at the arguments put forward by the member for Akaroa in support of his motion. To commence with, he set himself to prove that Central Government has not realised the results anticipated, nor have the promises made at the time of the abolition of

the provinces been fulfilled. Distinct pledges were given, Mr Montgomery averred, that the local bodies should be substantially endowed, and that the Land Fund should not be alienated. The pernicious system of log-rolling was to be heard of no more, and the roads and bridges would be under the control of local bodies, so as to obviate the necessity of appealing to Parliament for money for their construction. The question was whether any of these things had come to pass, and this the member for Akaroa answered emphatically in the negative. The Land Fund had been swept away, and so far from local bodies being substantially endowed they were forced now to depend entirely upon rates, while log-rolling was as common as ever, and the scramble for public money by members desirous of obtaining as much as possible of the good things going lor the benefit of the districts they represented was repeated in every successive session. As to the second portion of the motion, namely, that much discontent prevails in New Zealand in consequence of the present centralising policy, we do not think that this is so self-evident as Mr Montgomery would have us believe. It may be that the abolition of the provinces has not fulfilled all the dreams conjured up by the oriental imagination of Sir Julius Vogel, but it would be too much to say that the majority of the people consider it to be an utter failure. At all events ,we must wait until another general election comes round, and it this is made a crucial point of policy we shall then be able to determine what is the view of the colony on the question. So far Mr Montgomery had only dealt with what he considered the bane of Centralism, but in the final division of his motion, he points out the antidote. He would have the administration of local affairs, including public works, withdrawn from the control of the and placed in the hands of bodies elected by districts having community of interests. Coming to details, Mr Montgomery held that three of these bodies would suffice, Otago, Canterbury and Westland electing one, Nelson, Marlborough, Taranaki another, while the rest of the North Island would be represented by a third. 1 his was the change in the constitution which the member for Akaroa declared the public mind of the colony was ripe for, and twenty-two members of the House voted with him on the question.

The speeches delivered on the Government side of the House were few in number as compared with those m favor of the motion, nor, with the exception of that of the Native Minister, were they so brilliant. The Colonial Treasurer’s criti ism of the motion was rather that of a clever debater, quick to seize on points that would tell at the instant, rather than of an able statesman whose speech will bear careful perusal. He said that Abolition was brought about in accordance with the wish of the people, who had afterwards declared that it should not be repealed. He also stated that the pledges, as alleged by Mr Montgomery, had not been made, but that whatever was promised at the time had been fulfilled. Major Atkinson is of course justified in saying that when the provinces were abolished the measure was approved of by the majority of the colonists, and it is exceedingly doubtful whether a return to the old system would meet (with the approval of the greater part of the people. But on the other hand, it is equally certain that what was foreshadowed in Sir Julius Vogel’s speech advocating Central Government has not come to pass. It may be that that statesman painted the picture in too bright colors, but it does not follow, as the Treasurer argues, that because the colony at one time decided in favor of a certain form of government, no further alteration is to be made when it is recognised that the results anticipated have pot been realised. The Native Minister principally confined himself to the remedy proposed by Mr Montgomery, which the former regarded as a modified provincialism. Mr Bryce hit upon a weak point in the proposals when he referred to the financial aspect of the question, which had been only casually mentioned by the member for Akaroa as presenting no difficulty. Provincialism, he said, had been a failure in the past, and to recur to such a system would be a mistake. This is perfectly true, but we doubt whether it was quite fair, except from a party point of view, to fine down the debate to one between Centralism and Provincialism, No one really believes that the people of the Colony wish to take such a retrograde step as to return to the form of govern-, ment in force before the provinces were abolished. Even Mr Macandrew, formerly the most violent opponent of Centralism, spoke clearly on this point. Stiil it would be idle to deny that there is a widespread discontent throughout certain portions of the colony, especially in Canterbury, with the present system of local government. For this reason we consider that the ventilation of the question caused by the debate on ' Mr Montgomery’s motion was not by any means a waste of time, although we could easily have spared some of the speeches of longwinded members who added nothing to our knowledge of the subject.