A VOICE FROM THE PAST.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 16, 19 July 1905, Page 2

A VOICE FROM THE PAST.

THE OLD PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT, i DEBATE IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. A MOTION DEFEATED.

There was an interesting debate in the Legislative Council yesterday, full of the flavour of a long dead past, arising out of a motion by the Hon. Sir G. M. O'Rorke thab "in order to give a greater diffusion of Parliamentary life and Government work throughout New Zealand," a return should be made to the. system of Provmcial'Governments that was abolished in 1876. The motion contained eleven clauses (the purport of which has already been set forth in our columns), the first being "that, in the opinion of this Council the concentration of all parliamentary business and governmental work in one central part in the colony is detrimental to other | parts of the colony, and to the training of colonial youth generally to public life." The second is the one quoted above. In advancing his motion Sir Maurice CTKorke confined himself almost entirely to an eulogy of the men engaged in directing the provinces under the old syetem of government. He declared that he had 1 not conceived his motion in any spirit of hostility to any party, but was actuated solely by a desire to see the affairs of the colony brought again under the system given by the pilgrim fathers 60 years ago. I He desired to hear the views of members of the Council, and to ascertain whether they were satisfied that it had been a wise act to abolish the provinces. He knew it would be said that in abolishing them we had only anticipated what Australia had 'done in the matter of Federation, but he contended that the two cases were not •on all fours. He) wished the Council to bake into serious consideration what would be the position of affairs under the present system 50 years hence. He would be satisfied if the Council would agree on the main points (the first two clauses) of his motion. Concurrence with tho principle of the motion was expressed by the Hon. W C. Smith as "one of those who thought that a great mistake had been made when the provinces were abolished." Although the colony had made vast progress, so he argued, yet the rate of advance would have been faster had the provinces remained. Moreover' the abolition of the provincial system and the delegation of local legislative powers to the present local bodies had resulted in a waste 01 money that would have been saved by the retention of the old system. The motion was seriously opposed by the Attorney-General, who declared that the question was one of the most important that could be submitted to the Council, and that therefore, having regard to the splendid and distinguished services rendered by the mover in his Parliamentary career, and the fact that he had sacrificed office in the interests of institutions he was now advocating, hs might have thought it worth his while to submit very strong arguments why we should revert to the former mode of government. But beyond, his eulogy of those who championed the provinces when they were threatened with extinction, and his regrets for the passing away of those institutions, he had shown no reasons for adopting his proposal. Ihe Attorney-General went on to argue that a glance at the conditions of 30' years ago could only lead to the conclusion that the time for the abolition of the provinces had arrived in 1875. Whether it, was held that tbe powers ot the provincial council^ were given under tie Constitution Act or created by the General Assembly, everyone should regard them as institutions created to meet the conditions of tha colony in the days of foundation. The provincial system, he admitted, was admirably suited to the needs of the country at that time. The complications, differences, and inconsistencies of the provincial laws, however, as well as the power of provincial borrowing, were emphasised by the Attorney-General as disadvantages, and he contended that when the Consolidation of Loans Act was posed in 1865 to take over the provincial loans it was felt thnt the time was fast approaching M'hon the provincial councils, which had got into financial difficulties, should go. That Act was the warning note of tho death of the system. The present motion proposed to revert to the old order of things in giving the superintendents of provinces scats in the General Assembly. J.ll the old days this had been very inconvenient ta^ the general government, as these members, by banding together, were able to exercise a very undesirable influ. enoe. The provinces were never intended to exercise the large functions which they ultimately assumed, when they went far beyond local matters into affairs of genera^ government and colonial finance. This motion was the first attempt made sinoe 1875 (abolition year) in the direction of restoring the provincial system, and it Bought to create an inconvenient and difficult stqte of things. He had" not the slightest doubt that the mover bslievedin his motion, but iie trusted -that it would not be agreed to. Tii supporting the motion, tho Hon. F. Trask adduced as an argument in favour ofthe old governmental system the fact that Nelson had suffered very severely when •r\ pi i <> l inces wero abolssn «i, inasmuch as it had had a quarter of a million in its treasury, while every other province was comparatively bankrupt. ' The Hon. W. Baillfe opposed tho motion, speaking from the knowledge of intimate relations with provincial administration in tho post. He had suggested in 1861 that a centra Gorerament was better than tho system existing then, .but nine-tenths of the members wero opposed to his views, and he had accordingly made •no opposition until i«rt> lhe direction of tho motion was entirely erroneous. The Hon. T. Kelly also strongly opposed the motion, and urged that the provinces had lived on capital, depending almost entirely on their share of the Customs revenue and the sale of land. In Auckland, it l)ad been said, the Pjovinciiil , Government had sold railway rails to assist its revenue, and while Taranaki Had levied its taxes for roads and bridges, jt had dono nothing for education. The unprofitableness of raking up tho dry bones .of provincialism was the theme of the Hon. G. M'Lean's contribution to the debate. Nobody, he urged, would say that it was desirable to go back to the old order of things He spoke of the financial embarrassment of the old provinces, and urged that if the counties were given proper powers, the local government would bo better than the provincial government of the bygone days. The colony would have been in a state of insolvency in a very short time if the provinces had not been got rid of. The Hon. J. Marsnall also opposed the motion. The Hon. W. Bolt, while he recognised that it was hopeless to hark back to the old system, insisted that, In spite of "its shortcomings, ib had had many advantages. It had cultivated public lif?, and «n interent in public affairs, in all classes, and there was no hucli public life to-day as in the old provincial days. He regretted the form of the mo-

tiou, and moved an amendment to the effect that a committee be appointed by the Council to enquire, with a similar committee from the House, as to whether it was practicable x>r desirable to revert to the provincial system, and, if so, to define the modifications necessary, and to veport to Parliament. The Attorney-General hoped that both the amendment and the motion would be rejected. They knew that local government wae a question that had to be dealt with by the House — if not this session, then next session. But it could not be delayed. He ridiculed tho idea of setting up such a committee as was suggested,, and declared that it was unnecessary. They all knew that it was necessary to bring about an improved system of local government, and it could better be done by amending the present system than by setting up a useless committee which would involve an amount of labour and an expense that would be very heavy and quite unnecessary. The motion was rejected by 19 votes to 11, and after the Hon. C. Louisson had declared that ifc was impossible to think of reinstating the old system (on the grounds that the electors would not submit to the removal of any of the supreme powers from the hands of the general Government, and that the question was outside practical politics), the amendment was also lost.