The Press Wednesday, January 30, 1924. North v. South.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 17984, 30 January 1924, Page 8

The Press Wednesday, January 30, 1924. North v. South.

It is'th-o duty of tho Mayor of Christchurch to stand up vigorously for the rvghts and interests of tho city, and of

fclio province, and this duty Mr Flesher is quite ready to perform. Not long ago, his vexation at the Government's attitude on a question of much importance to Cliristchurch led him to urge, in general but emphatic terms, that I the city should rebel in some way. On j Monday last, at the meeting of the City Council, he made a milder suggestion concerning a way of escape from the statutory restrictions upon the power of the Council to raise loans. "In fact," he said, "ho was inclined " to think that only bv separation from "tho North Island could tho South " Island, get something done instead of, " as afc present, being tied down by tho " N/orth Island." Amplifying this

opinion in a statement we print ii"

■'another column, Mr Flesher expresses liis fear that the -South Island in the future will be a very subordinate factor in the general administration of the

affairs of the Dominion, that "we in " tho South Island will never have tiie bright to develop our own resources for "the good of our own community," and that the South Island is going to be preyed upon by tho North. This very gloomy prophecy is the outcome of the Mayor's reflexion upon the Highways Board, the idea of taxing petrol, and Parliament's antagonism to the Waimakariri power scheme. Wo like to see in our public men a vigorous determination to defend local rights, which is not at all the same thing as that aggressive opposition to other people's rights which is so unpleasing a characteristic of many of the people in the northern portion of the Dominion. But the remedy which Mr Flesher proposes is far more drastic than the case requires, and has serious disadvantages of its own. If this island were to become —we do not think it will —"a very subordinate " factor in the general administration," it could, not fairly complain. Minorities cannot expect to enjoy the powers and privileges of majorities. If it were allowed that because it makes a minority in the House, this island should separate from the North Island, we should have to allow the right of secession to erery minority—to tho province of Canterbury,' to the city of Christchurch, to the district of Avon. Where is the line to be drawn ? The answer, we know, is, Through Cook Strait. It is a pure accident that a narrow strait separates the islands ; the existence of that strait does not make the two Islands any the less an organic whole. Even if the two Islands were to have separate governing authorities and separate Parliaments, a central Parliament would be required to deal with that part, of government—and this is by far the largest part and the most important—which would be concerned with the affairs common to both islands. To have two State Parliaments and one Federal Parliament in this

5 small country of ours would be absurd. I It would impair that sense of national unity which, we all wish to preserve. I And one of the early sequels would be an agitation in Otago to cast off the domination of the people north of the "YYaitaki. Mr Flesher does not ask for nothing less than a restoration of the former Provincial form of government; he speaks of "some other modification . " of the constitution giving the South " Island greater freedom." The constitution need not be altered at all. Greater freedom can be given to the South Island without touching the constitution. Ail that is required—certainly it is in itself a good deal, and wQI not be easy to get—is a revision of the statutes which, though framed "to apply equally to all parts, happen to operate against Southern interests. Where a statute causes hardship and injustice to the South owing to the difference between the conditions in the two islands, or where it enables the Northern, majority to stand unfairly in the way of the rights of the South, it should be altered. "What is required is that the present and prospective interests of this island should be surveyed, and the obstacles to their advancement analysed down to the roots. Then our representatives can agitate for an amendment of the law to give to local districts self-government within limits which will guard against the transgression of other rights or the injuring of the national interest. To take a concrete case, "the "Waimakariri power scheme: it would be enough to demand that the Qovernment shall leave the Council free to carry out the scheme on its own responsibility, subject to no veto exercised on any such ground as tho Public Works Department has taken its stand upon. Be- . iween asking for freedom from the

vexatious application of the central Government's authority over local bodies and asking for the division of the Dominion into two independent and impliedly hostile parts there is a wide difference.