TWO PARLIAMENTS

Press, Volume LX, Issue 17986, 1 February 1924, Page 8

TWO PARLIAMENTS

MR J. A. FLESBER'B

SUGGESTION.

AUCKLAND PRESS OPINION.

(SPECIAL TO <4 TBX P2.ESS. )

AUCKLAND, January 31. To-day's "Herald" in an editorial says: "It is impossible to decide hov. seriously the Mayor of Christchurc i 'was speaking when ho suggested. t ie creation of a South Island Parliainen as the only euro for northern doiuination. It is equally impossible to take his suggestion seriously. Tho sedulously created bogey of an octopus-like North Island, eager to bring all possible public benefits within its farspreading tentacles, serves well enoug as an offering to southern audiences when there is an election at hand. 1 cr haps it should not be so, but an election audience often likes to amused. For the same piece ot poe imagery to be the resort of a l nl , man addressing a local authority, ana outwardly at least, expecting to be ia - en seripuslv, is a classic example or conscious humour often residing humourless people. •' However, it Flesher's proposition could be accep - ed seriously, the answer from the North - Island could be made speeclilj • No civil war would break out- r this proposed secession. If feoutli Island people really wanted a sepaiaate Parliament and full responsibuitj for their own affairs the hest tiling would lie to agree heartily that they bo given both. Then they would have to bear all the loss of their working railways without a subsidy from the highly profitr.-'le northern lines. Ihose educational institutions upon which they pride themselves so much, the monopoly in which they guard so jealously, would then be maintained at their own expense, instead ofi receiving generous monetary aid from parts of New Zealand which benefit little from them. When they found tho North Island, freed from its incubus, lowering railway charges and increasing services, progressing at its proper pace, instead of waiting on a laggard south, growing in wealth and population faster than ever, and continuing to attract ambitious sons of the" south, as it .does now, there might be a hnsty move to ,annul the divorce. It is a dangerous suggestion that Mr Flesher has made—dangerous for the South Island, because there might bo a cordial North Island invitation to go ahead and fulfil, the threat.

The Auckland "Star," -after saying that "'Mi- Flesher is by nor means a professional humorist," but a public man who takes himself and his city too seriously to "handle such grave subjects with unbecoming levity," proceeds: "So far as the main points in Mr Flesher's indictment of the North are concerned, wo fear that we must plead guilty. Painful as it may be for Southerners to contemplate or admit, it is an undoubted fact that the North Island has now a larger population than the South, more trade, more wealth, and infinitely greater potentialities for settlement and the development of natural resources. But once these undeniable facts are granted, it necessarily follows that the North, in justice to itself and to the whole Dominion, may rightfully claim a larger share of the public expenditure than the South. Does it not contribute the larger half of the. public revenue? and is it not a benefit to the whole Dominion that the public revenue should be expended most largely in that portion of the country where it will do most good by ensuring the most rapid increase • of the public wealth? In plain words, Mr Flesher's grievance amounts to this, that the North is reaping the fruits of its own I wealth and progress, and he is unhappy apparently because Parliament in recent years has not seen fit to handicap and penalise the North heavily enough-to keep it on the same .low level of progress and 'development as the South. Absurdly illogical as this argument is, it is even more petty-minded and parochial. For it ignores the vitally important fact that Now Zealand is one and indivisible, and that the growth of' the North in wealth and prosperity must react beneficially upon the Sbuth as well. There was a time in the history of New Zealand when this argument worked the other way round. We may remind Mr Flesher aiid his Southorb sympathisers that forty or fifty years ago, when the South was relatively populous and well-settled, and the North, convulsed by Native ware, was still for the.most part a wilderness, the representatives of the South in Parliament saw to it that the greater part of the public revenue was expended in that portion of the country whera it was raised. , It was on the ground that the South needed speedy development and was capable of profitable exploitation that such expensive and comparatively unproductive works ns the Otugo Central and the Canterbury-Wcstlnnd railways jyer6 initiated and the North for the time acquiesced. But circumstances have completely altered now, and our compliant against Mr Flesher and those who share his views is not simply that they are narrow-minded and parochial, but that in their jealous resentment at the inevitable passing of the old Southern ascendancy they are losing sight entirely nf the higher interests of Now Zealand, which or necessity involve their own hast interests as well." AUCKLAND'S "DERISIVE CHUCKLE." WHERE WOULD FEDERAL PARLIAMENT MEET ? (special to "the press."} AUCKLAND, January 31. j The proposal of the Mayor of Christ- j church for a South Island Parliament was referred to several members of •Parliament, but they were rather shy about discussing the subject, and preferred, like Brer Fox, to "lie low and say nutlrin.' "

"It is a pity to raise this foolish cry of North against South at all," said Mr W. E. Parry, M.P. for Auckland Central. "There is so much development work required in New Zealand that public men should encourage a spirit of co-operation 'throughout the Dominion, rather than arouße the j.>oorer spirit of parochialism.' ■ Any suggestion about the necesg'lty for the South Island cutting the.painter need not be given serious consideration. What is wanted is national progress, each province doing its best to promote the development of the Dominion. Those who advocate parochial politics these days deserve a rap on the knucldefa." It is stated in the "Herald" that "comment in Auckland was brief, and was most expressive when it was inarticulate. This was when it took the form of a derisive chuckle; 'You can always depend on Christehurch to provide a freakish political Mea,' said tx veteran in public affairs, with memories of the days when the South Island got the first and best helping of 'the stuffed political goose.' It is ridiculous for

the responsible representative of local government to assert that the South Island is so tied down and fettered by North Island political domination that the South will never have tho right to develop its own resources. ? In what wav one might very well ask, has Cantcrburv been penalised because of its situation and lack of voting strength in the New Zealand Parliament?" The "Herald" article concludes: "If separate Parliament were established in each of-the two main islands, where would the Federal Parliament meet? Possiblv at the Chatham Islands, to be equal to the Australian Commonwealth Government at Canberra, in order to avoid parochial distractions."

dunedin newspaper COMMENT. (special to - 'ths PRESS.") DUNEDIN, January 31. The -'•'Star," editorially, says:—"lt 3 a bold suggestion which has been put orward by the Mayor of Christehurch hat ah agitation should be made for omething like a reversion to the old irovineial system of government in rder that the South Island may be elieved from disadvantages of which t has reason to complain, owing to tho mmerical preponderance, resulting in a (redominant political power, of the On the personal side it is renarkablo as showing liojv the most jractical, not to say the most con;ervative, of men may have their noments of romanticism. But this projosal is too daring, oven, it might bo laid, too desperate, to bo acceptable, [t has. not found a seconder even pro iorma. If Mr Flesher was more given ;o being a humorist, it would be diffi J :ult not to regai'd tho sorious manner n which, his startling argument was idvanced as something akin to those jlaborate jokes which Samuel Butler lelighted to play upon his readers. Neither the South nor the North, liow3ver,: can take this suggestion, soriously. [f tho disadvantages endured by the South were more grievous than they are, separation would be outside the range 3f practical politics. We are one people Cor good or evil, altogether for good, most believe. A return to provincialism or anything resembling it would be no better than reactionary reversion. At this stage of our progress, 'selfdetermination' has no part happily in our constitution. If the South Island wished (as it does not) to set up a separate Government, it would not do so without the North's consent, both parties having the same right to vote upon the mattor in the Parliament in which the North has a majority, nnd if a federal system such as that which makes too much government for Australia were established in this small country, with. island Parliaments for the discussion of, purely -local- matters, and a central one to resolve those which are of Dominion concern, any province or part of a province would have the same right to secede from its Home Eule entity. The logical end of such independence would be anarchy. The South will rather bear the ills it has than dream of such desperate remedies. They are evils after all Which can be easily exaggerated, and thoy need not last for ever. For forty years the South Island had a predominance of population over the North, and tho North made the most of that condition. There are some- signs that the tide is turning again in "the earlier direction, and we may yet htive an equality of members in a Dominion Parliament. Meanwhile disabilities can bo-lessened by insistence of decentralisation-and the largei measure of local control in all matters that lend themselves to that system, ue much wished for by the North as by the Sciuth. The South Island must set that newcomers, are attracted to it, anc its advantages mado known io the world at largo with as much zeal as is shevyn in the North." "

• "GOING BACKWARD.? (SPECIAI. TO "THE PEESfI,") GREYMOUTH, January 31. Under 'the heading of "Going flackward," the Greyinouth "Evening Star" liad the following Bub-loader 011 the above proposal:—"When Dr. Thacker was Mayor of Christchurch, it was not unusual to'find novel, and sometimes weird, suggestions being mode in the way of administration, but it was generally assumed that his successor, Mi J. A. Flesher, would be more cautious in his recommendations. It is therefore strange that he should ba ui'ging the establishment of. : a South Island Parliament, mainly because •in late years, Ministerial attention has been given more to North Island requirements than to those urged for the South. Apparently there in little support in Christehurch for the proposed double Parliahietit, and there will he even less in other parts' of the 3>ominion. A separate South Island Parliament would be going backward with a vengeance, and the situation would indeed have to become desperate before such a remedy was tried. It is true that a Cabinet, mainly composed of North Island representatives, has been very kind to that portion of the Dominion, especially Auckland, lmt> the South has had some of t"he loaves and fishes. In <wrlier yeax's. it was the South, with its closer settlement, which

secured most of what'\Vas going; thus, the leeway to be made up. by the North, when its boota-timo came, was not inconsiderable, liven if the .North had been unduly favoured, it would not be in the Dominion's interests to ellcourage national disunity. New Zealand is not a big country where land area is concerned and its single Parliament is already too large, relative to the size of the population. Not separation, but less'parochialism is the policy to be encouraged. Some of the protest's made by the South when the North obtains something, or vice (versa, are exhibitions of childish jealousy, unworthy of a people of the stamn New Zealanucrs can justly claim to be."