PARLIAMENT.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1060, 16 July 1883, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, July 13. NEW BILLS. The Registration of Electors Act Amendment Bill and Gaming and Lotteries Act Amendment Bill (Pyke) were read a first time. ANTI-CENTRAL RBSOLUTXON.S Mr J. Shepherd resumed the debate on Mr Montgomery’s resolutions. He regretted that the House seemed to be reduced to the position of a colonial debating society. There was nothing practical in what they were discussing. He opposed the resolutions at considerable length, but, if the third one came to the vote, he would move the ommission of the words “ including public works.” Either the Counties or the Road Boards ought, he thought, to be abolished. The resolution really meant separation. Mr Watt opposed the resolutions, but thought that both Road Boards and Counties were unnecessary. One should be done away with. Mr Duncan supported the resolutions, and accused the Minister of Mines of neglecting the Goldfields interests, especially in the Waitaki district in regard to water rights. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment.

EVENING SITTING. The House resumed at 7.30. Mr Duncan continued the debate, narrating the number of local grievances, as an evidence of the evil of centralism. He was in favour of insular separation, but would support the resolutions. Mr Ivess said that his district had pronounced against centralism. That system bad failed. He was not in favour of reviving Provincialism, but thong that the power of the counties should bo largely increased, and the number of counties reduced. He would support the resolutions, but not on any party grounds.. Mr Wynn Williams ridiculed the ridiculous and trivial local grievances which were being urged as a ground for serious constitutional change. The resolutions had neither head or tail, or inside or outside. He was surprised at the audacity of Mr Montgomery in bringing down such resolutions to that House. Canterbury, at least, would never revive the farce of Provincialism. He charged Mr Holmes with doing more than kny man in the colony to injure the prospects of the West Coast Railway by the course he was adopting. The idea of Otago, Canterbury, and Westland agreeing under one local government was ridiculous. He strongly condemned Sir George Grey’s conduct in constantly making serious charges of dishonourable conduct against Ministers.

He characterised Rusden’s statements about Hon. Mr Bryce as infamous, vile, and scurrilous, and such as the. House should resent. Mr Bracken thought that the resolutions wodld soon sour the hearts of the people of the colony. Ninety-nine out of every hundred men in the colony would condemn the present system of Government, which fostered and stimulated local jealousies. He advocated a federal union and several States, as the best form of Government for New Zealand. Owing to its configuration the colony would not much longer submit to be governed from Wellington. Mr Hursthouse said that there was nothing in the question to start with. Nothing had been disclosed in the debate, and it would end in nothing, as the subject was long ago worn threadbare. He strongly opposed the resolutions, and condemned the idea of reviving Provincialism, although admitting that everything expected from the abolition had not been realised. If any scheme to improve local government or reduce taxation was proposed he would support it, but these resolutions would do neither. He protested strongly against" Sir George Grey’s conduct and speeches, maligning honest men in the most shameful manner, without being able to produce the slightest proof. He challenged him to prove even one of these charges. If this could be done he for one would support Sir George Grey to the utmost in rooting out the perpetrators, He also repudiated with scorn the charges of Rusden against Mr Bryce. He had himself been led into action by Mr Bryce, and was well acquainted with the whole of the facts. He thought there were altogether too many small local bodies of one kind or another, and that the central ,administration was also capable of great improvement. After a few remarks from MrJEfohnes a division was taken, and the la of Mr Montgomery’s first resolution was struck out in favour of Mr Moss’s amendment. This was also defeated on a division by 38 to 19 and a further division on Mr Montgomery’s resolutions resulted in their being thrown out by 34 to 24.