The News. SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1880. TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume I, Issue 28, 17 July 1880, Page 2

The News. SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1880. TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.

On the 26th. of May last, we drew attention to the cumbersomeness of our present system of Local Government in the following words, when referring to the circular sent round by the Secretary of the Treasury to tkeblocal bodies as to j tlie withdi-awalof'-iKhe'subsidiea-.— '" The whole system of Local Government will have to undergo 'a complete change. Circumlocution will have to be done away with, and the counties will have to give place to the road boards, with more extended powers, or the road boards will have tomerge into the counties. Mr. Ormond, who ' fathered . the present Local Government Act, admitted that something of the kind would have ' to be done. The sooner the difficulty is faced the better."- We have, therefore, anxiously looked "forward to the full report of- the speech delivered by the hon. member for Olive during the noconfidence debate. , f The newspaper'reports were necessarily very much condensed, in consequence "of the protracted character of the debate ; but in the ninth number of " Hansard " we have the exact words, from which we take the following extract : — . " I come now io a subject that I very much regret to feel compelled to speak i upon, but I am not, going to be prevented from expressing my opinions when I have formed them. Intimately connected with the|Bubject of economy is our form of local government. I would ask this House, is the present system of local government efficient? Is it cheap? Does it give satisfaction ? I regret to say — and I shall presently explain why I regret to say — that I do not think the system is economical, efficient, or satisfactory. I was one of a party which brought about Abolition. I say that Abolition • was forced upon this country; and I do not wish to amplify upon that. I have* endeavored all through to avoid as much as I_can matter that will produce recrimination in debate, and I will content' myself by saying, in general terms, that Abolition was brought about, by the excessive assumption of powers by Provincial Governments, and mainly by those Governments treating the colony as a milch cow for their own advantage. 'I was one of the party which worked for years in favor of Abolition, and I stand to-night in the position of one who has to say that to a certain extent he regrets the action he has taken. I think that myself and my friends, forced as I think we were into the position— although, of course, that is a matter for argument — failed to discern that our duty was to insist upon a modification of Provincialism rather than Abolition. At any rate,~ : that is the conviction which has come over my mind. Viewing as I do the present system as being costly, inefficient, and failing to meet the wants of the people, it seems to me that, sooner or later, the time will come when we shall have to revert to a system of modified Provincialism. In .establishing a central "Government in thjfo .country we failed, I think, to recognise' the difficulties placed in our way by the, configuration of the country. We are not inthe position of the Australian colonies in' thiafmatter, and we did not sufficiently realise that fact. As being one of those, concerned, it is with regret that I have to admit that the system we substituted is not one that is doing real good to the country. In our present difficulty, this item of the cost of .local government is no small item, and, if effect is given to the proposals of the Treasurer, it will be a very large item indeed. If, therefore, economy can be obtained by a change in the existing form of government, it is the duty of this House to consider it. Ido not want to take up unnecessary time, and I will only refer to .the very'vaktable report of the Civil Service'iCommißsion, as pointing out ways in which the central form of government is not-acting advantageously. What does that reponrfc sajt.with regard to the waste of moneys pn^jsurveys, on the administration of w!astefi^|te,and on other subjects of that kind?' It points out that a ; Government, however -good it "may be£— however able its administration — is unable, at this centre, to docjiißtice to 'the outlying districts. That is the' conviction which must occur to everyone's mmd who studies that report. It is .a reflection which must occur to the mind of every one- who has carefully thought on the subject. Ido not propose to enter into any lengthy statement as -to what I think should be the shape of any future modified Provincialism: whatever it may be, it'wHlhave'ta lake an J almost" pucgly administrative form. Referring to the local-government scheme

proposed by the Government, I wish to say that I have in ray mind a body under which effect might be given to the distribution of moneys very much better than by the Minister for Public "Works and a Board of , Commissioners : I inea»,Tt>y a Board elected by the people in the different districts. I i believe myself that public opinion on this j matter is gradually becoming fixed, and .that it will not be long before effect will be given to the views I have uttered on this subject." We do not agree with the ex-Superin-tendent of Hawke's Bay, that the remedy , for the present state of things will be found in a modified system of Provincialism. At the time when the Bill for Abolition was introduced, we held very strong opinions against it, because we took into consideration, what Mr. Osmond admits that he and others did not,, the fact of the configuration of the country being entirely different to that of the Australian colonies; and even there we saw, during a period of eight years' .residence, the tendency to centralise everything, as much as possible, in the capitals. But we hold that nothing can be worse than coddling in affairs of Government. Constant change produces uncertainty, and uncertainty has a tendency to drive away capital from a country. CHARLES t jAMEB Fox strenuously opposed the Union of L-e-land with England ; but when he got to the head of affairs, and was asked to stand by his previous convictions, he replied that it was one thing to oppose the Union before it became law, but it was an entirely different matter to effect its repeal afterwards. We are expressing no opinion on the Act of Union, nor of the manner of its passing, although holding very pronounced opinions upon the subject. We merely refer to it as illustrating the difficulty under which men like Mr. Ormond will labor if they attempt to revert, back to Provincialism, no matter how much the scheme may be modified. What is required is that those who are at all worthy of the name of statesmen should cease bickerings and personalities, and, by putting their beads together, try and simplify our pi*esent system of Local and General Government, so as to render it more workable, more economical, and, we will add also, more efficient. Let all unnecessary offices be done away ; let the House itself set the example by curtailing the salaries voted to its members ; let the " bauble" (as Cromwell termed it), which now adorns the table of the House, be done away with, as recommended by Messrs. Swanson and Hursthouse ; and leithe members of both Houses endeavor to simplify our present cumbersome, costly, and inefficient system of Local Government. That is the true method of remedying the present state of things, and not by reverting back to a system which the people pronounced — wrongly, we believe, but still emphatically pronounced — to be unsuited to the existing requirements of the colony. Coddling must be avoided. It is not even successful when applied to the bringing up of children : the result is generally a weak and sickly frame. And so it will be if we attempt it with our system of Government. The Local Government Act, which Mr. Ortoond introduced, was hurriedly devised to supersede the Provincial form of Government. It is far from being a perfect measure. Some of the local bodies — such, for instance, as our own Town Board — have a difficulty in finding out what their powers or duties are. Let all the old Provincial Ordinances be swept away, and let us have a really workable Local 'Government Act, which will enable local bodies, to perform their duties without fear or trembling, and let the wording of it be such that commonsense, practical men, who will have to administer it, may be able to read and understand it themselves. Let the road hoards take the place of the counties, or allow the counties to perform all the work now done by these- bodies. We have too much government altogether. Cannot Mr. Ormond, and other members like him, apply their talents in that direction ? As Sir George Grey said at the time of Abolition, " It is easy to pull down, but it is difficult to build up." It is easy to make our present system efficient, if members will take the trouble to do it ; but it will be very difficult to revert back to Provincialism. We want woi'k done : there has r t been too much theoretical , speculation, and it has not been worth the amount paid for it.