PARLIAMENT.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1059, 13 July 1883, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, July 11. In the Council to-day the Prisons Bill passed through Committee, and some discussion took place on the motion by Sir George Whitmore for a return of the public works expenditure in the different counties of the colony. The Council rose at 5 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday,g July 11. The House met at 2.80 p.m. The report of the Joint Committee pn. Standing Orders on , the. ; St. John College Removal Bill was agreed to,; and the Bill read a first time.NEW ZEALAND NATIVE LAND COM- , ■ pany’s bill. The Joint Committee reported that the New Zealand Native Lands Bill was a private one. QUESTIONS. ■ ' In reply to questions, Ministers said Government would amend the law so as to give local bodies power to keep roads free from gorse spreading from adjacent hedges,. Samples of brown paper recently submitted from the Mataura Mill were a great improvement on previous samples, and Govenyneht would give an order if the prices were reasonable. There was no power to prevent James Carey, or other informers, landing in the colony, if they came. A Bill for the arrest of fugitive husbands would bo introduced. CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT. Mr Hutchison moved for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Contagious Diseases Act, and, in doing so, spoke at some length on the subject. Mr Holies ton objected to discussion of the on leave to introduce the Bill. On the second reading he. would be prepared to show that the operation of the Act had been beneficial. Mr Pyke would like to see the Act made compulsory. Mr Montgomery strongly supported the existing Act, and would do away with prudery, and render the Act not only generally compulsory, but extend it so as to provide, as on the Continent, 1 for the surveillance of houses of ill-fame. It was absurd to ignore the existence of such places while nature was human nature. Mr Joyce opposed the repeal of the Act, and Mr Holmes to the Act having worked remarkably well in Christchurch. It would be of immense benefit to extend its operation. Mr FitzGerald said that the tendency

iu Europe was to repeal such Acts. It might, however, be better to wait here for further information before repealing the present Act. Mr Buchanan said that in France and England public opinion was against the system. He supported the Bill. Mr Hutchison replied, and leave to introduce the Bill was refused on a division of 42 to 19. NEW BILL. The Company’s Act Amendment Blh (Shaw) was introduced and read a time.—A number of unopposed returns were ordered. ANTI-CENTRAL RESOLUTIONS. Mr Levestam, in resuming the debate; Mr Montgomery’s anti-central resolutions, alluded to the various compacts made by Ministries of the day with sections of mem be is. They were enabled to do this through their large expending powers. The compact made some years ago with the Nelson members that ten miles a year of their- railway extension should be carried out, had been broken, not a mile being made. He objected to the Government having such powers, as it promoted logrolling. He was strongly opposed to central administration. He was proceeding to comment'on the possible diversion of the £IBO,OOO for the main trunk railway, when Major Atkinson rose and stated emphatically that the Government would not under any circumstances consent to a diversion of that vote. Mr Levastam said that he was glad to bear it, but then the Government had not been honest or candid to the Canterbury members - in encouraging ~ false hopes on their part. He was, as he had always been, a provincialist. Mr J W Thompson said that there was undoubtedly dissatisfaction throughout the .colony, but it was not likely to find much expression while the colony went on borrowing. . He did nob altogether agree with the resolutions, but they expressed a growing fee-hug, especially in Otago. He himself in favour of dividing New Zealand into'. two separate colonies. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment.' EVENING SITTING. . The House resumed at 7.30. Mr Fish, continued : the: debate, accusing Ministersof gross discourtesy ip not replying to the members who had spoken in support of the resolutions. He demanded to know whether they regarded the question as one of want of confidence or not. To treat it as one was a breach of faith on the part of the Government, but he was not surprised at it from Major Atkinson. He himself had been an advocate for abolition, but the promises then made had not been fulfilled, and he therefore supported the • resolutions. He had seen the folly of his former ways. The present system was a miserable sham. He denied that the resolutions proposed to restore the bid form of Provincialism. He would prefer insular separation, with a federal Government, but after all that was a -matter of detail. Mr Munro hoped that the resolutions would be adopted hereafter, as defining party lines in the House. The question really was not central Government, but County Government versus Provincialism. He did not think that the county system had at all so failed as to justify a return to Provincialism. Promises no doubt bad been but was there any discontent novriHßt isling to be compared to the disc<&_3i^ prevailing- under JProvincialism.: Mr Holmes supported the principle of the resolutions, but, if they were to be regarded as a vote of want of confidence, he would not vote on them at all. He was not at all prepared to go back to the extravagance of Provincialism, but the central system had. certainly failed. He condemned the proposal to increase the salaries of the Supreme Court Judges, as a fresh instance of pernicious centralism. Ha quoted, a great number of instances in Canterbury of central mal-administratiph and he accused the Government of having hookwinked and: imposed upon the Canterbury members in regard to the East and West Coast Railway, and the diversion of the £IBO,OOO vote. .They understood something very different to what the Treasurer had said that afternoon on the subject. The House rose at 12.10 a.m.

THURSDAY, July 12. Mr Pyke continued the debate and supported the motion. - Mr Sutton supported, and Mr Moss moved as ah amendment, “ That the existing system of central Government has failed to realise the results anticipated, and that it is expedient to reestablish local governments, and local legislatures, with adequate powers to maintain peace, order, and good government,- within their several ■ to raise all revenue for their proper and independent support, and to relieve the General Government and general legislature of all matters that are not of purely general concern.” EVENING SITTING. House resumed at 7.30. Mr Macandrew would like to see insular separation and local bodies reserve more borrowing powers. Mr Bryce said that to adopt-the policy of giving local bodies unlimited borrowing would bring ruin on the Colony. He recalled the grievances ot the out districts under provincialism: The resolutions, if given effect to, would destroy real self-government by the Comities, Road Boards, and Boroughs. As to separation, he regarded it as impossible owing to financial reasons. He considered' Sir George Grey s speech as degrading to that lion member himself, and degrading' to the House. Making the serious charges he constantly did against the public men, was' seriously affecting the public tone of the colony. Mr Hutchison spoke in favour, and Mr Fitzgerald against the resolution, Mr J, McKenzie supported the reso-

lutions, The promises by which abolition had been gained had not been fulfilled, and Parliament was only a big Road Board, Local bodies should have power to deal with scab, fencing, rabbits ami similar questions. Tawhai would strongly oppose any return to provincialism. Mr Harris would support the first and second resolution but not vote on the third. Mr Sheppard moved the adjonrmneni of the debate. Mr Seddon gave notice of a further amendment condemning the present multiplicity of local boards on different subjects. The House rose at 12.10.