PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 297, 26 May 1875, Page 4

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Tuesday, May 25. The Speaker took the chair at 3 p.m. PETITIONS. Mr Montgomery presented a petition from certain residents in the province, praying for increased means of communication between the Cass’ Peak quarry and Christchurch. The petition was read and received. NOTIFICATION OF ELECTION. The Speaker announced that he had received a communication from his Honor the Superintendent, informing him that Mr J. B. Brown had been elected for Rangiora viee Mr T. W. Maude, resigned. PA.PBRS. The Secretary for Public Works laid several papers on the table. The Provincial Secretary also laid several returns on the table. FENCING ORDINANCE, 1875. Sir Cracroft Wilson moved —“ That leave be given to introduce a Bill entitled The Fencing Ordinance, 1875.” Leave was given; the Bill read a first time, ordered to be printed; and the second reading fixed for Friday next. ADDITIONS TO THE MUSEUM. Mr Potts moved —“ That a respectful address be presented to his Honor the Superintendent, requesting him to place on the Supplementary Estimates a sufficient sum to carry on so much of the proposed additions to the Museum as can be conveniently erected during the present year.” He trusted the Government would see their way clear to accede to the Museum, and would go on with the additions without any serious tax upon the resources of the province. He trusted that the House would carry the resolution. The Secretary for Public Works regretted that the Government could not accede to the request,of the hon member, on financial grounds. f Hear, hear.] The Museum had been well supported hitherto, and the Government therefore, now that financial reasons pressed upon them, were unable to accede to the motion. This, he might say, was the only reason. Mr Webb was sorry to hear what had fallen from the Secretary for Public Works. He might say that he considered the province was hardly in that state of impecuniosity as to refuse this vote, which was, he might say, for a very desirable object. If this were not done, a very large number of specimens would remain unseen by the public. He felt sorry to see that the Government could not see their way clear to

support the resolution; Dr Rayneb, while acknowledging the great credit due to the Museum, must say that the present circumstances of the province were such, that they could not in justice to their constituents vote for this expenditure. When the circumstances of the province were better, he should be prepared to second a motion like this and support it. Mr Andrews was surprised to see such a motion as this brought forward in the shape it was. If he had proposed a re-vote of the sum he would have supported him. He should most decidedly oppose the resolution in the form in which it had been brought down by the hon member for Port Victoria (Mr Potts). Mr J. W. White (Timaru) hoped the House would not for one moment think of passing a vote like this. Without for one moment thinking that the province was in a state of bankruptcy he could not support a vote which was for a superfluity and a luxury, while other reproductive works would have to be overlooked. He should therefore oppose the resolution. Mr Perry would oppose the resolution, because they had had the positive assurance of the Government that it would be impossible to undertake works of any but the most pressing character. In the present state of the finances he quite agreed with the Government in their being just before they were generous, Mr JEBSON was of opinion that the Museum was as far advanced as any other of the public works of the province, and he thought it could well afford to wait until other public works of far greater utility were carried out. At present there were works which carried out their principle of opening up of the country, now standing still, and therefore he felt that the Museum could well afford to rest awhile. They were talking about reducing their educational expenditure and their charitable aid, and if they spent £14,000 on the Museum, they would be putting themselves in a peculiar position. Mr Montgomery said that if only a portion of the works were gone on with it would be quite different from what the promoters of the Museum hoped. Bethought that the Government when they came to consider the public works estimates would not treat them quite so badly as they said, and therefore he trusted the hon member would withdraw his motion. If the Government did not see their way clear to put the money on the estimates, then the hon member could move that the amount be placed on the supplementary estimates.

The Provincial Secretary said this was not a question of the utility of the Museum. The Government did not intend to move the sum of £14,000 as a revote, "because they had not the money to do it with. It was no doubt very desirable to have a large building at the Museum, but it was a question of money, and the Government programme was not to undertake any works but what were of primary necessity. This was what they had stated. He might point out to the Council that the province was in a worse condition than a few days back, because the Government had withdrawn the education building rate, and therefore the revenue had suffered by some £15,000. Then again there was an item of £23,000 sinking fund which the Government had expected to receive, but they now found that very little of this would come into the Treasury, so that very considerable reductions would hare to be made, even in the revenue as they had laid it before the House, Besides the items he had referred to they had discovered that there were large sums of money which would have to be provided for on the supplementary estimates, beyond those provided for in the main estimates. In view of this he asked the House whether it would be wise to expend so large a sum as £14,0u0 in the erection of an addition to the Museum. Hear, hear] As he had before said it was a matter of money j the Government found it could not be done, so they had resolved not to move the revote, though it appeared on the estimates so as to show the House the position of affairs. Mr Poxts said he would withdraw the motion.

On the question .for leave being given to withdraw being put, there was an objection. The motion of the resolution as a whole was then put and negatived on the voices. HOSPITAL DRESSERS. Dr Rayner’s motion, “ That the Government grant permission to the Resident Surgeon of the Christchurch and the Surgeon of the Timaru Hospitals to receive pupils as Hospital dressers, upon payment of fees subject to the approval of the Government,” stood over till Thursday. RESERVES. Mr Potts moved—“ That a return of reserves for higher education, showing the acreage respectively—lst, of those reserves Crown granted; 2nd, of those surveyed; 3rd, of those under contract for survey; 4th, of those not yet surveyed, or under contract for survey; be laid on the table.” The Provincial Secretary laid the return on the table. SHEEP ORDINANCE, 1875. Mr Harper moved—“ For leav’e to introduce a Bill to amend the Canterbury Sheep Ordinance, 1872, Amendment Ordinance, 1875.” Leave was given, the Bill read a first time, ordered to be printed, and the second reading fixed for next sitting day, EDUCATION ORDINANCE RETURNS. Dr Rayner moved—“ That the statement showing the amount expended from the passing of the Education Ordinance, 1871, to 30th June, 1873, in each educational district in the province, both for the erection of buildings and for the maintenance of schools, and also the amount paid within each district, also the same from Ist July, 1873, to 31st March, 1875, be printed.” The Provincial Secretary pointed out that the printing of this return would cost a large sum, and the hon member could obtain the information he required from the return on the table. The motion was withdrawn. surveys of the province. Mr Turnbull did not move the following notice of motion—“ That in the opinion of this Council the manner in which the Survey Department is conducted is most unsatisfactory, and requires the immediate attention of the Government.” RAILWAY TOLLS AND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, 1875. Hon G. Buckley moved the second reading of this Bill. He might say that it differed considerably from the Ordinance now in force. There was he might say no alteration in the schedules of tolls over the Lyttelton and Christchurch railway, nor the Great Southern railway, nor in the charge for parcels. The rates for wharfage, he might say, had been altered to the following : Coals, 2s 6d per ton from Is under the old Ordinance; wool altered from 3d per bale to 6d ; timber altered from 2d per 100 feet superficial to 4d; firewood from Is to 2s. In the new Bill, it would be seen, there was a clause, a new one, which proposed to charge for cranage. There was also a new clause providing for the regulation of the provision of storage at stations where facilities could be given without interfering with transit of goods. The reason why the Government proposed to double the wharfage charges wae to meet the interest and sinking fund fo:i the harbor loan about to be raised. The Government felt that they should only act as carriers. Wherever storage was necessary it would be provided. They intended to raise the charges next month to what they were before, as they felt that in many instances the charges made were too low, and had been fixed without consideration of the cost incurred by labor. Of course when the Harbor Loan came into operation, the wharfage rates would have to be carried to a separate account. The Otago railways, he might say, were being worked al a much less cost than the railways here, asi the cost was only 53 per cent on the grosii revenue, while here it was 84 per cent. He thought that the Canterbury railways might so be worked as to reduce this large amount of per centage. The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time.

On the motion for going into committee, Mr J, N ; Tosswill said he hoped that the going into committee on this Bill would be adjourned until the next sitting day. Members had had no opportunity asjyet of considering the changes proposed in the schedules. He would therefore move that the debate be adjourned to next day. The motion was agreed to, and the debate adjourned. COMMITTEE OP SUPPLY, The House went into committee of supply. Mr Webb in the chair. Class B—Charitable aid, £7689 3s. After some discussion the item passed as printed. Class 9—lndustrial school, £859. Agreed to. Class 10—Orphan Asylum, £3360. Agreed to. Class 11—Inspector of Sheep, £2200. Agreed to. Class 12—Miscellaneous, £11,051 7s. On this vote, Mr Parker rose to move the reduction of the vote by striking out the item “ Railway fares,” members of the Provincial Council, £350. He thought that it was not right that the passes should be used except during the session of the Council. [Hear, hear, and “ No, no.”] Mr J, N. Tosswill supported the motion. He had pledged himself never to use the pass and he never had. Mr Gray supported the amendment, Messrs Perry, Rayner, Turnbull, and Fisher, spoke in favor of the item being retained. The amendment on being put was declared to be negatived. Mr Parker demanded a division, which took place as follows : Ayes 10 Noes 16 Majority in favor of the item... 6 The item passed as printed. Auditing school committee accounts, collecting educational rates, &c, £3OO. On this item, Mr Higgins moved that it be struck out. The motion was negatived on the voices. On the item “Acclimatisation Society, Christchurch, £700.” Mr Higgins moved that it be reduced by £SOO. After some discussion, the item passed as printed, and the whole item, £11,051 7s was agreed to. Class 13 Public Works Department, £5,629 6s Bd. Agreed to, Class 14 Waste Lands Board, £950. Agreed to. Class 15—Surveys—£34,639 10s. On this item being put, Mr R. Turnbull moved the reduction of the vote by the item “ £14,000, contract surTeyi.”

Mr Pilliet moved that the chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was declared to be carried on the voices. Progress was then reported, and leave given to sit again next day. DIVERSION OP ROADS SPECIAL ORDINANCE NO. 3, 18/5. The House then went into committee to consider this Bill. In committee the Bill passed without amendment, was reported to the House, and the third reading fixed for next sitting day. EDUCATION ORDINANCE, 1875. The House then went into committee on the Education Bill. Clause 2 was proposed, as follows : —“ The Education Ordinance 1873 is hereby repealed Provided always that nothing in this section contained shall invalidate or be deemed taken or construed to invalidate or affect any proceeding matter or thing already taken or done by virtue in pursuance of or under the authority of the said Ordinance Provided that any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding the Members of the Board of Education now holding office under the said Ordinance may continue to hold such office and carry on the duties and continue to hold the powers of the said Board until appointment of a secretary by the Superintendent as hereinafter provided. And all acts done by the said members of the said Board shall be as valid and effectual as if the said Act had not been repealed And it shall be lawful for the Superintendent to fill any vacancy by the resignation of any such member until the appointment of such secretary as aforesaid.” The Speaker said that he had been very careful to try and find out what object there was in doing away with the present form of government. He was not wedded to the peculiar form of a Board. There were other ways of carrying on the business, such as the proposal of the hon member for Heathcote, but it appeared to him that some more valid argument should be advanced for the doing away with the Board. He expected to have heard the Government say plainly on this

clause why it wished to make this change. The great advantage of the Board was that it was thoroughly non-political, and without any ulterior object beyond the education of the province. Now, it appeared to him that if they substituted a Minister for Education he need not be an enthusiast, or practically acquainted with the work. It was not a question of party but a question of how best to serve the cause. It now appeared that it was intended to make education a political matter, and that the person entrusted with the powers of education should be so entrusted because he happened to please the party in power. This of course was not the case with the Board, which was essentially non-political, and quite free from any bias of the kind, It had been urged that there was a great deal of work to be put on the members of the Board, and judging from the reports of their meetings it must take a very long time to get through the work. This of course could not be expected to go on, and he (Mr Tancred) had expressed his feeling that the work to be done under the Ordinance was too much. His opinion was that the Ordinance had not done any good to the cause of education, and he thought that the Board interfered too much with the committees, and also had too much work itself to do. He was bound to say that his opinion was that the best Ordinance was that ot 1864, as he thought that the local committees should have more power, the Board being a sort of central head. This was what was provided in the Act of 1864, and ha thought this was the position the Board should occupy, viz, that of a supervising power. Regarding the abolition of provincial institutions, if this came to pass under the present Ordinance, the educational system lost its guiding and controlling power, whereas if the power lay in the hands of the local committees, and the work of education was not bound up with the Provincial Executive, the work would still go on. Another argument he had against the present Bill was that he objected to concentrating the whole power of the State in the same hands. With every confidence in the gentlemen holding the reins of power and those who might come after them, he should like to see the work of education carried on by a body removed from the influence of any Government. These were his reasons for objecting to the Bill in 'the present case. If his views of the case were adopted the Bill would have to be greatly reconstructed, as instead of the Board doing everything for them he would give the power to the local committees.

MrWYNN Williams said that it wasalways understood when the second reading of an important Bill like this was agreed to, the general tenor of the Bill was accepted. Now, however, they found that in committee it was proposed to alter the whole principle. If the change was considered necessary it was only right that a distinct resolution should be put before the committee, that an alteration in the constitution of the educational authority was not necessary, and that the Board should be retained. If this was to be tested, then he thought this was the proper course. What he said when moving the second reading wae, that the Government thought that where a large sum of money was to be expended the Government should have some control over it. As regarded the excess of expenditure, he had said that it was forced on the Board and the committees. With reference to the substitution of the secretary for the Board, he night say that the objection seemed to be that a political bias would be imported. He would like to point out that for some years the greater number of the members had also been members of that House, so that really there was a political bias imported even into the Board of Education. He went further than this, and said that it was very likely many members of that Board might have been elected from political considerations. There was something to be said in favor of the proposed change, and that was that the official proposed would be directly responsible to the Government, and the Government to the House; hence the Council would see that they held a check and control over the Education department, which at present they did not. He could not at all see why the secretary it was proposed to be appointed would be unfit. He need not be more so than the chairman and members of the Board of Education; and besides this, it had been said that the Government would be in the power of the secretary, but this certainly could not be more objectionable than the placing the whole control of the routine work in the hands of the chairman of the Board,|| fwhich was the case at the present time. He would point out that the Government were extremely unlikely to give up the control altogether to the secretary, because they would be responsible

to the Council, whereas members of the Board who came from a distance would be prone to leave everything in the hands of the chairman. Besides this, the work of t e department would, if in the hands of the Government, go on from day to day, and there would be no stoppage, as at present, owing to the Board only meeting once a week. In his own district a school was stopped on account of the m ister’s suffering from fever, and it became necessary that a master should be appointed at once. This was done, and the master discharged his duty and received his salary. A fortnight after this a letter was received from the Board, stating that the - aster’s appointment was sanctioned, and that the salary would be paid. Now if the work was going on day by day this could not occur. As regarded the amendment proposed by the hon member for Heathcote, he contended that the proper course would be for him to move a distinct resolution, and not raise the question on an amendment. But he would further point out that there must be a secretary even if they had a Minister, and if the hon member for Heathcote carried his amendment they would be placed in a difficulty, and the Bill could not be proceeded with. The simplest way to do would be to allow clause 4 to go to the committee, and if it was rejected the Bill could be reprinted, taking the discussion on the clause, and not on the amendment of the hon member for Heathcote.

Mr Montgomery gathered from what had fallen from hon members that the Board of Education was a thing of the past. [Hear, hear,] Had he not thought this he should not have put the amendment on the paper for a Minister for Education, which he looked upon as the next best thing. He did not see very well how the second clause could be gone on with. It would be better to postpone it until after the others (virtually clause 4) had been disposed of. He felt that it would be better to go on for a year or so with the present system, as whatever were the defects of the Board it had put education on a far better footing than it had been for some years. [Hear, hear.] He decidedly denied that the members of the Board were appointed from political reasons, as there were men on it totally opposed to each other. With regard to the Minister, it did not necessarily follow that a secretary should be mentioned in the Bill at all. The secretary, he took it, was simply a portion of the machinery, and not, as attempted to be put by the hon gentleman opposite, a principal. [Hear, hear.] Mr W. B. Tosswill said that the Council and the country felt grateful to the gentlemen who had acted on the Board of Education, but they felt that the business had grown very much. The Council had refused last year to vote an honorarium to the chairman, and since then the work had increased so much that it was felt that gentlemen could not longer be asked to give up their time to it. Again, there were large sums spent without any control, and it was these two points, and not any slighting of the efforts of the Board, which had called forth the remarks made by hon members. The putting of the spending of this money also in the hands of the local committees would hardly, he thought, be attended with good results, as, scattered as they were, no control could be exercised; at the same time, he was in favor of the local committees having larger power. Kegarding the appointment of a Minister of Education, he confessed he could hardly see the difference between one of the Government administering the affairs of education and the Superintendent nominating a gentleman, in whose hands the power would lie. He should support the proposition of the hon member for Heathcote when it was brought before the House, as he considered it would be much better to have one official directly responsible to the House than to have the five members who sat on the benches opposite acting as a Board of Education.

Dr Turnbull said it was his intention to propose at some stage of the discussion a resolution whereby the question of the change from the Board of Education would be raised. He might say that he desired to express his regret at finding in the Bill a provision for sweeping away a body so deserving of the thanks of the country as the Board of Education. Now, as regarded the principle, he must say that this was the Bill of the session upon which the present Government staked their existence. [“ No, no.”] Well, all he could say was, that if the second reading of the Bill had been thrown out the Government and their supporters would find themselves in a very peculiar position. [“No, no.”] What he contended was, that the principle of the Bill had not been discussed. As regarded what had been said by the Provincial Solicitor as to the gross extravagance of the Board—[Mr Wynn Williams: “I never said anything about gross extravagance; I never used the words.”] The fact was that no extravagance had been proved against the Board, because it could not be proved. He contended that no Provincial Secretary could administer the work of education with satisfaction to himself, the scholars, or the country; nor could he discharge the work as the Board had done. He asked the House to pause before they swept away an institution which had done such good work. Let them combine the paid and unpaid; let them get the assistance of the men who had during the past few years so ably administered the work of education. Let the House take the paid secretary or chairman who might attend to the details, and thus combine the great advantage of the advice of those who so thoroughly well deserved the thanks of the community He was sorry to see that the tendencies of tbe present Executive were of a repressive character, of a character rather of sitting down upon education, and an idea that education was overdone. Hundreds of persons were unable to pay the present fees; hundreds would be unable to pay the increased fees, and yet what did they see? Why the Executive coming down with propositions to cut down their Museum, their public library, to double the fees and the poll tax, He said it advisedly, that he would far rather entrust the work of education to the present Provincial Secretary alone rather than to the Government collectively. If it were placed in the hands of the Government their repressive tendencies were so pronounced that the public would have no confidence in their administration. He would suggest that the discussion should be adjourned to another evening, or that the House should agree to retain the services of a body who had served the province so faithfully as the Board of Education. [Hear, hear.] Mr Wynn Williams suggested that if the hon member for Christchurch or those who thought with him desired to test the question of tbe Board for Education, tbe proper

course would be for them to attempt to negative clause 2. Then, if this were rejected, the committee would have to report progress, and the Bill be reprinted, Mr Montgomery, under these circum stances, would have to vote against the clause, because he considered that the House should not dispense with the services of the Board. However, having gone into committee, he thought they were bound to try and make the best Bill they could. [Hear, hear.] He desired also to say that he did not for one moment look upon the Bill as being a question upon which the Government would go out. He would vote against the clause on the understanding that the Government were prepared to accept amendments, and not consider them as affecting their position on those benches. , The Provincial Secretary thought the hon member for Heathcote had gone rather further than the Government could accept. In committee of course the Government would accept amendments to an extent; but to say that they would willingly accept any amendments which might be put in to the Bill was going too far. Mr J. N. Tosswill said the Board of Education were what the Education Ordinance made them. The Act was to blame, and he did not think hon members had looked at it from this point of view, because they had all round accused the Board withouto nee thinking that all they had done was to administer the Ordinance. Now, let them look at what had occurred. The Ordinance held the Board responsible for the expenditure of money, and yet allowed the local committees to collect the rates and fees, and expend them totally outside the powers of the Board, which, under the Ordinance, had no control or check. If the fees and rates came through the treasury, and the committees sent in estimates of their requirements, there would be that amount of check and control which at present was not possessed. Of course he accepted the decision of the House on the second reading of the Bill, that the Board of Education would have to give way, but he felt that the Act itself and not the Board, was to blame for the state of things which had been laid to the charge of the Board alone. [Hear, hear.] The clause was then put and declared to be carried on the voices. Dr Turnbull demanded a division, which took place as follows : Ayes 23 Noes 11 Majority in favor of the clause 12 , The result was received with acclamation. The clause as printed passed. Clause 3 passed on the voices.

On clause 4: —“There shall be an office called the Education Office, administered by an officer called the Secretary for Education, , who shall be appointed by the Superintendent.” Mr Montgomery moved the substitution of the following clause :—“ There shall be an Education Department, presided over and administered by a Secretary for Education, who shall be a member of the Executive Council, and also a member of the Provincial Council.” He believed that the substitution of an officer such as he proposed would be more beneficial. When hon members came to consider the large amount of money to be administered, it seemed to him that the Minister for Education would occupy as onerous a position as any of the other secretaries, and he did not think this very large and important department could be managed so efficiently as it could be under the care of an officer, whose peculiar duty would be to look after the interests of education. He (Mr Montgomery) hoped the House would accept this clause in the interests of education, To say that he moved it in the interest of education and not to embarrass the Government was hardly necessary. The matter of the Board was decided; that was gone, and they now had to see that an officer should be appointed who could sit on those benches and have the whole of the matters connected with his department at his fingers’ ends, that the Board would be responsible to the House, and would come to the Council prepared to give every information on the points connected with the department under his care. Mr Wynn Williams said that the Government could not accept the amendment as proposed by the hon member for Heathcote, because it was unnecessary. Let the hon gentleman come down and move that a member of the Executive should hold the office of Minister of Education and the Government would, if it were carried, at once appoint one of their number. But he would point out that the amendment, if carried would preclude the question of the appointment of a member of the Executive as Minister of Education being discussed. Let the present clause go, because they wanted a secretary, and then the question could be raised by a distinct resolution. So far as he

was concerned, he would. oppose a Minister of Education being a political officer, because it would interfere with the continuity of administration. The hon member now proposed that there should be a political officer, while some short time back he was opposed to the appointment of such an officer. He (Mr' Williams) thought that the.proposal of the hon member for Heathcote would bring about a state of things highly undesirable as the officer would have to change with the alteration of Executive, and a new officer would come in totally unprepared to take up the duties of the office, because he would be as a matter of course quite unaware of what had taken place. Mr Walker said that he was surprised to find the turn ‘the discussion had taken, as they were now told that they must either have a political Board or a political chief. He really could not see why the education department could not as efficiently be administered by the Government as the police and other departments. He trusted the House would pass the Bill. The Speaker thought that they were losing time in discussing the question, because the Bill had placed the conduct of education under the control of the Executive of the province. He therefore opposed the amendment as proposed by the hon member for Heathcote. [Hear, hear.] Mr Jbbson was about to propose several amendments, but he had been told that what he proposed involved the reconstruction of the Executive Council Ordinance. His opinion was that education should be totally and completely separated from politics, and that the local committees should have more power, and that their grievances should be attended to, which would be done by the appointment of a permanent secretary with a Minister for Education who would be responsible to the Council,

Mr JOYNT said that his opinion was that the Executive Council Ordinance would not be affected in one iota. He contended that the Bill under discussion took away any administrative power from the proposed officer, and left him simply a sort of head clerk or under secretary, the real governing power being the Executive. At this stage of the discussion, Mr Harpee moved that the chairman report progress. The motion for reporting progress was lost on the voices. Mr Harper supported the new clause proposed by the hon member for Heathcote. He had proposed that progress should be reported because there were several members who would vote on the question who were not present. He never, he might say, saw a provision made in any Ordinance for the appointment of an under secretary such as this. He felt sure that the appointment of one of the Executive as Secretary for Education was alike an economical and prudent measure, and one which would be a good thing for the cause of education. After some further discussion, in which Mr J. N. Tosswill and Mr W. B. Tosswill took part, Mr W. B. Tosswill moved that the chairman report progress. The motion was negatived on the voices. A division was called for with the follow ing result;— Ayes 10 Noes 24 Majority against reporting progress 14 Tne amendment proposed by Mr Montgomery was then put and negatived on the voices. The clause as originally proposed in the Bill was then put and agreed to. Clauses 5,6, 7, and 8 were then put and agreed to. Progress was then reported, with leave to sit again. Notices of motion having been given, the House adjourned until 3 p.m. this day.