SEPARATION FROM AUSTRALIA

Otago Witness, Issue 2921, 9 March 1910, Page 32

SEPARATION FROM AUSTRALIA

METHODIST CONFERENCE DISCUSSES PROPOSAL.

AFFIRMATIVE RESOLUTION CARRIED.

VOTE OF 99 TO 31

Ever since 1881 a section of the Methodist Church in New Zealand (which is at present merely a portion of tha Methodist Church of Australasia, 'with its legislative powers limited accordingly) has been striving to fiee itself from Australia and establish an independent, self-governing Conference in New Zealand. Of late years this movement has grown very much, and! a vote of quarterly meetings and home mission stations gave the following result: Ninety-seven circuits and 10 home mission stations voted; 76 circuits reported a majority of votes in favour of the proposal, and 19 a majority against it, and two were equally divided.' Of the home mission stations which voted, nine were in favour and one against. The New Zealand Confterenoe, which is at present sitting in Dunedin, had the. whole question before it yesterday, and it resolved, by an overwhelming majority, to endeavour to effect separation. • During the 1909 Conference, when the question of separation was discussed, a committee was set up to formulate and consider a working scheme for an independent Conference in New Zealand. This committee met in Christchurch on May 13 and 15 last. At Wednesday's session of the Conference the Secretary reported that the working scheme had been considered by the special committee set up for the purpose, which had also had before it various suggestions made by the Synods. The committee recor.mended the adoption of the scheme as printed, with certain small amendments. The scheme would then be as follows: — "Name of the Church.—The Methodist Church of New , Zealand.

" Existing Laws and Constitution. — Subject to the modifications arising from the changes herein provided for, and such other modifications as may be necessary, the laws and Constitution of_ the Methodist Church of Australasia at the date of New Zealand independence shall be the laws and Constitution of tha Methodist Church of New Zealand,

i ''Powers- of the Conference. —Subject to i the provisions of the model deed and 'The ] Wesleyan Methodist, Church Property | Trust Act. 1887,"' and amendments thereof; the Conference shall have full powers of j legislation in matters- now. under the solo I control of the .General- Conference and the ! control of its connexional funds, provided ! that no new legislation . shall take effect, until it has been submitted. to the annual district Synods, and confirmed by a resolution passed by a majority, of 55 per cent, of the votes of the members present and , voting at the next succeeding Conference. j " Supernumerary Fund.—(l)-. A separate ; Supernumerary Fund shall be formed for ' New Zealand, which shall be credited with its share of the Australasian Fund and | assets, the- same to be determined by ac- ; tuarial investigation. (2) The creation of j the separate Supernumerary Fund shall j take place as soon as convenient after the next actuarial investigation (December 31, I 1911) has been made for the General Conj ference of the Methodist Church of Austral- ! asia. (3) All New Zealand claimants on j the- fund at the date of separation shall ! continue their connection with the present i fund, and receive their payments therefrom 1 according to th© rules of that fund. (4) No minister'who, at the time of the actuI anal investigation above referred to, shall ! have made 30 or more actual payments I into the Australasian Fund shall be reauired to pay more into the New Zealand Fund than they would have required to pay -had they remained in th© Australasian Fund, nor shall he Or his widow be paid less than he would have received had he remained in such last-mentioned fund, and provided further that any such last-men-tioned minister shall be entitled to receive a guarantee for or oh behalf of the New Zeahuid Conference for the fulfilment of the foregoing promise. (5) No alteration shall be made in the essential principle on which the fund is administered for a period of at least 10 years after, the New Zealand i has been formed. ! "Foreign Missions.—(l) For the present New Zealand shall continue to support the Foreitrn Mission fund of the Methodist Church of Australasia, and arrangements be made for New Zealand representation ort the Board of Misions,.and on the General Conference Committee on Foreign Missions. (2) Provision shall also be madei whereby, at such time as may be agreed! | upon, the New Zealand Conference shall accept responsibility for a separate mission) field. "Ministerial Transfers.—(l) Facilities : shall be given" to ministers who have to ; ftome to New Zealand under existing transI fer conditions, to be re-transferred to Aus-; tralia, should thev so desire. (2) Provisions shall also be made so that other transfers may be effected from time to time "with j the consent of the parties concerned with- ! out loss of ministerial status, the relation! | to connexional funds to be arranged by, ' the Conferences interested. j "Fraternal Delegation.—For the purpose I of -naintaiiTiing a fraternal relationship bei tween Australia and New Zealand, arrange- ! ments may be made for visits of fraternal | delegates between the General Conference! '■ of Australasia and the New Zealand Conference.

" Date of Independence..—The elate of independence shall be from the second Monday in April, 1912."

i The Conference went into committee to : consider, seriatim, the various clauses of ! this report. | Discussion, lasting some hours, ensued, ! and it was resolved that a committee take i charge of the scheme as_ formulated, and! ' make such verbal alterations as might be desirable or necessary to incorporate the various amendments approved of. It waS I ordered that a clause be inserted providing I for ministers, who were not supernumerary; j ministers,, and. who were in corineetioni with the ■Conference, when separation was ! effected, contributing to the supernumerary!

I fund.. r . j Discussion on the general question • of whether separation should ba sought for, j or not, then ensued. i Rev. S. Lawry, in accordance with notice" of motion given, moved as follows: "That the proposal for an Independent > - Conference for New Zealand having beea

approved by 73 per cent, of those who recorded tneir votes in the quarterly meetings to which the question was submitted, and by 156 out of a total of 223 who -\oted on it. in the District Synods, this Conference declares its conviction that the time has arrived when independent and self-governing- powers should be conferred on the New Zealand Annual Conference, and the i G-er.aral Conference is recommended Ito accept the accompany " working scheme," and to pass the legislation necessary to give effect to < the same." _

Speaking in support of his motion, Mr liawry safd the matter had been so very fully discussed in the quarterly meetings, the syneds, and that Conference that dxy in its* treatment of the working scheme, that lengthened argument was hardly necessary. He would, however, briefly outline their position and the reasons upon which they advanced their request for air independent conference. It was beoomirrg_increasingly evident that Australia and Biew Zealand "could not be treated as a single entity, either ecclesiastically or otherwise. During the years of their partnership thev had been growing apart rather than growing together. The ecclesiastical mdepandence of New Zealand was a natural evolution There came a time in the life of the Church a® in that of the individual, when it was necessary to be on independent ground and to work out a personal and individual destiny. They needed an independent conference to place them on an equality with other self-governing Churches in New Zealand. They needed this- independency to secure that legislation which they had been consistently advocating for the past 35 years. They had once cherished the hope that they might get this legislation from the General Conference, but those who were present at the 1904- Conference would remember that the then president simply ruled their requests out of order; when that was done they could never hope to attain their ends. The time of the General Conference was, in fact, so much - occupied with variousmatters that there was really very little time left for legislation. In 1907 very important changes were made, when there were only 29 members of the Conference present. The .vork was either lushed through-or neglected, and in either case there was no remedy for three years. Thev needed freedom of action in the gcveinanje of their own church. At present they did not have this. Their freedom was curtailed bv orders over which they had no control, although they did in many cases take certain freedoms to which they were not legally entitled. Further, on the main argument thej received no adequate return for the time and money spent on the • General. Conference. They could have no effective representation because of the difficulty experienced by their members in attending their own conferences and the General Conference also. An independent conference was essential to -the complete- > ness of. Methodist union in New Zealand, and this action aiming at ,it was, they considered, a step in the direction of that church union which they all coveted. Although they had territorial union with Australia, they had internal disunion, which they could not hope to get rid of . unless they, could meet them on equal terms for conference. It was morally certain that . if they secured an independent conference they would have removed the biggest barrier in the way of Methodist union in New Zealand. The Primitive Methodist Church was watching this discussion with as keen . an interest as they themselves were. He . knew this because many came to him and spoke freely about it. An independent conference must be. regarded as ultimately inevitable. That was admitted, even by j the more strenuous opponents of union. _When it was denied to them in 1831, it "was because it wa: said to be premature. . That was 29 years ago, and they said the same in 1884. The movement had had 30 years' growth since then, and they should now be prepared to take on themselves the responsibility of their independence. If they continually regarded themselves as grasshoppers, other people would regard them similarly. r They should be prepared to confront the difficulties which confronted them. When 73 per cent, of their people desired the change they should receive it. By being bound to Australia, as thev were at present, should any possible church-union come about in New Zealand they must 6tand aloof through not being independent. , Mr J. C Stephens seconded the motion. - He proposed to advance some of the reasons of his having been an advocate of separation for the last 12 years. He was converted to the separation movement at the General Conference itself. He went there expecting to gain inspiration, but that proved a vain hope; instead, he saw New Zealand ministers and laymen treated as a negligible quantity, who had no influen- . tial voice in debat**-. He learned that when any question affecting the States of Australia was concerned was under consideration the States representatives would light among themselves, but when it came to a question between Australia and New Zealand. Australia as a whole would fight New • Zeal?nd every time.—(Applause.) The Geneial Conference was. from our point of view, somewhat cumbersome; it stood ■ in the way oi reform, and it was in itself essentially conservative. New Zealand lost much in the present system of exchanges. and lost much in the present system of conducting missions In Australia they had a mission to the Chinese, and a mission to the blacks. New Zealand shared in bearing ihe cost of these missions. In New Zealand thev had a' mission to the Maoris. Who paid for that?—(Voice: "New Zealand alone." and loud applause.) With regard to the arguments of the -opposition, he believed that there was in the minds of those on the other side an underlying fear that this proposal was simply a covert attempt to alter the polity of their Church, and some even believed that it had designs upon the itinerary system. It was evident that those who made that argument did not understand the purpose of the separation party. So far as the proposed reforms were concerned, he would point out that their's was a living Church. It could not stand still. It must go forward, and progress included the establishment of the separation proposal. As for the argument that this question should not have been sent down to the quarterly meetings, surely they were not going to say it was not wise to sectt r e the opinions of the people interested,, and surely, with a vote before them, »uch as they had, it could not be said that they were wrong in attempting to give effect to their desire*. It had been said that they were strengthened with a strong vot; before, and why get i nother; but that waa no argument against obt?.ir.ing the latest wishes of a •aajority o£ tho people of the Church. He

submitted that the solo question before then: was: W as this proposal for the good of their Church; It was because it was for the good of the Church, and of New Zealand, (hat he supported the motion. Rev. Mr Baumber felt that in opposing this motion he undertook a position of great responsibility. He did not oppose the proposal very willingly, but he did it because he was convinced that what they were seeking to do was inimical to the interests of the Methodist Church Jin New Zealand, and, having, that conviction, he was bound to speak. With regard to the votes of the quarterly meetings, he contended that these were not worthy of the regard which had been given them. While he° acknowledged that there had been a majority in favour of the proposal, he did not believe that it was an enlightened vote, and he did not forget that there had been a large and by no means uninfluential minority. He believed that the people in their congregations took very little interest in this question—which was not a burning question so far as they were concerned — and they would he perfectly content to remain in alliance with Australia. He believed that this movement was not a natural growth. It was a forced growth. He saw no reason to account for this sudden ohange of opinion on the part of the brethren. He was convinced that had this matter not been set down to the quarterly meetings, scarcely any quarterly meetings would have troubled to send any resolution to the Conference dealing with this subject. He did not doubt the capability of the New Zealand Church to manage its own affairs, and he did not doubt that hie fellow members in that Conference were faithful and honourable men. But he contended that under present conditions they had all the power they wanted to do their work wisely and well, and to cut themselves off from Australia would mean weakening themselves considerably. ' Under present conditions they had all the power of selfgovernment they required. In certain circumstances they had to go to England when they wanted to do certain things; to that extent they lacked, complete independence. Yet would any man be mad enough to suggest that they should separate from England because they did not have this liberty. Did they, propose this alteration on the ground of economy? If they had a Conference of their own, with legislative authority, \with the necessary officials travelling about the country, it would be a more costly arrangement than the system at present in operation. It had been said that, during the time the ministers* were present at the General Conference, their services were altogether lost. Surely none grudged the ministers this little holiday, if it could be regarded as a holiday. sonally, he himself did not look upon this as N a holiday. He worked his hardest for the Church, and regarded it as an honour to be associated with his Australian brethren in doing something for .the great Church over there. He was* doubtful whether the efficiency of the Church would be maintained after separation, and whether the New Zealand Church would be so well prepared to carry out its great work. Thev had just as great opportunities to do God's work now as ever they had, and as ever they were likely tor have, and he honed there would that day be a vote which would show that they were determined to stay with that great historic- Australian Church and do the work God had given them to do in these States. Mr J. A. Flesher, in confuting the arguments advanced by Mr Baumber, «»id that the quarterly meetings to which the question had been referred, was the most representative body of their Church. Of the 73,000 communicants in their Church 53.000 wanted separation, and he believed that if the matter had gone right home to the congregations the number would have been 65,000. This growth of feeling was not, as Mr Baumber said, a forced growth, but was a natural growth extending over 30 years, and the reason for the present revival of opinion was the opposition received, lnose who advocated the separation were not afraid to Crust the people; but those in opposition deprecated the movement It was not correct to say the separation, would be costly. All that it would entail would be the cost of an .act of Parliament, which m this case would, not be less than £5. Ihe sneaker then proceeded to refer to the attitude of Australia to this question. The influence of Australia to New Zealand had always, been prejudicial. But for the conference of 1884 they would have accomphshed Methodist union in New Zealand, and would have set such an example to the whole of Australia as would have hurried up Methodist union over there long before it took place later on. The influence of JV>w Zealand on Australia was practically nil in connection with the general Conference and this had been the case since ene action of the General Conference of cause.of Method,srn in New Zealand. The Rev. C. H. Garland, following •poke in opposition to the proposed separation and supported the idea . of a wide legislative area with a narrow administrative area such as at present obtained. He believed in a wide union in the Methodism of these Australian seas and supported-the unity of Australia and New Zealand. It was not correct to sav that New Zaalanders were a negligible quantity at the General Conference—he had seen instances to the contrary. Mr „J- C. Prudhoe gave some valuable financial information. He said that the proposal for separation had given some of them no small amount of thought to ascertain whether ic would be possible for them to establish and maintain a fund on safe and sound lines in connection with which ministers would have no cause whatever to worry. He intended to go briefly into this question. In the first place, he had doubted whether they had sufficient members to maintain a fund. Accordingly he had submitted the point to Mr P- Muter. F.P.A., Acting Government Actuary, who, in response, gave an expression of opinion that was in the interests of New Zealand. He pointed out that there were in New Zealand two societies with successful schemes of fewer members than they would have. One was of 58 members, with a fund of £2123, and the other had 62 members with a capital of £IO,OOO. Both of these societies were actuarially sound, and they might reasonably suppose that a much larger fund would be possible of maintenance. He estimated that their fund would start with probably 150 members, including supernumeraries, and 135 would probably be active. The speaker further read from the report of the Government Actuary, who made the suggestion that in the event of .a possible deficiency the churches should guarantee to increase their subscriptions. The speaker remarked that he himself had no doubt that if ever the occasion arose

the churches would certainly increase their subscriptions. Another prospect, of success was that the men here would not break down so soon as the Australian men. The figures of average death and vitality were in favour of New Zealand. Another reason was that there would be better supervision in small funds than ifl> \"°. r .y large funds where the diffused responsibility encouraged negligent payments. This was shown by the fact that Last year the Australian system produced fines at the rate of 5'4 per cent., amounting to'about £2500. The New Zealand record was about onetwentieth of this, and he had no doubt whatever that New Zealand could do better than Australia. It was plain that New Zealand could satisfactorily invest the fund money, so he need say little on that point. Were separation carried, the sum' of money to be transferred to New Zealand would be about £70,000. It was plain this could not bo transferred immediately, but he thought it could be done at the rate of £15,000 per year, which could readily be invested, on good securities. As to the rate of interest, they could maintain quite as high a rate as Australia, where the average had been 4g per cent. New Zealand could do better thaa that. As to the work of management, this was not a serious matter at all, and he was satisfied that the whole work could be done by the connexional secretary, with the assistance of a board or committee to regulate and make the necessary investments. In Australia the actuary had allowed the cost of management to be at the rate of 10 per cent, on the income. They would have about 130 members in New Zealand, and tho income from these- would be about £2700, which would allow an annual sum of £270 for management. This, he said, would be more than enough. In addition to this they would also have about £l7O a year, the surplus in the form of their present share of the cost of the General Conference. This sum could go as a relief to the fund, and, further, he thought the time had come when they should have connexional offices, for the building of which they could borrow £2OOO. In conclusion, the speaker said there was not only every prospect of their being able to manage a separate fund with equal success, but in all probability they could do even better than had been done by the Australian fund. In giving his opinion he had stuck strictly to facts arid figures. The Conference need have no feeling of hesitancy in the matter of the proposed separation of this fund from that of Australia in the event of the proposal Being carried. Rev. T. N. Griffin said that Mr Prudhoe's advice was generally worth following. But there was no suggestion of laxity or maladministration of the supernumerary fund, and he did not see the necessity of changing the administration of the fund. He was altogether opposed to the proposal to borrow money in order to start an independent fund in New Zealand, particularly when there were dozens of little circuits crying out for money. He spoke with much emphasis against the separation proposal, the necessity for which he altogether failed to see; Rev. J. J. Lewis (Nelson) said that he regarded the vote of the people in favour of separation as the voice of God. It had been said that the vote of 1909 in favour of separation was ever so much less than that of 1897. The issue before the congregations in 1909 was a complex one; that of 1897 was not. He proceeded, in a distinctly humorous vein, to deal with the general question of separation, and brought out some strong arguments in favour of his view—that separation was desirable. Mr S. J. Ambury opposed >,he motion. Rev. T. Fee said that while his convictions were strongly in favour of things remaining - as they were, he was prepared to go with the majority, and work with it to the best of his ability if it decided in favour of separation.

Rev. W. Ready snpke in support*of- the separation movement. While separating in law from Australia they would remain, he said, in combination with the law of Methodism which reigned throughout the world.

Rev. Mr Lawry. speakinsr in reply, in supoort of his motion, said he was amazed at Mr Baumber's suggestion, that there was anv lack of interest in New Zealand. He had always found the keenest interest amongst the voung people. He thought, further, the V>est way to help Australia would be in way o f ' <riv>ng them an object 'esson. In to the fund, the cost of hicl certa.ini v been complained of. although Mr Orriffin had not. apparently noticed it. He had received advice from Australia that the attitude of ministers _there would- deppnrl unon the attitude of this Conference. Did the Conference here wish to keep the agitation going for another three years, as wou'd be the case were the nroposa.l not carried. It would be a pity that this agitation should be unduly prolonged. Come it must, and the sooner the better. He ask»d the Conference to at the matte" fairly and justly and, l.flr» their ex-presi-dent, be orenared to withdraw onnosition in obedience to the will of the majority. Tli" motion ws then put, and carried bi- QQ to 31. Tho followine- motion was then cprried: —"Tl*Ms the General Conference be requested to- anooint a select committee at an eavly session to consider the proposed ' working scheme.' and to report thereon when the question is brought up for disci' s«ion."

The folloT'infir motion produced some d'S--<ussion —" That our representatives be instrufW to support the forejroincr recommendations. a n d to "ote for t"em in the Ceneral Conference." Several sneakers p+i-ono-lv i"-"cd against the compulsion s™»nlied in this motion, but sffcft* some discussion the motion was carried.-