POLITICAL NOTES & NOTIONS

Observer, Volume 2, Issue 39, 11 June 1881, Page 422

POLITICAL NOTES & NOTIONS

Mr Oliver. — His History. — His Speech at Dunedin. — Oliver and Reader Wood.— The Triennial Parliaments Bill. — Chinese Immigration. — A Wretched Policy

Since we last wrote Mr Oliver has spoken iv Dunedin and the speech is too characteristic of the man and the position to be passed over without notice. It is remarkable chiefly for self -laudation, coupled with laboured attempts at depreciation of those who wex-e opposed to Mm. Mr Oliver was perhaps, when out or office, one of the most silent members in the House. He is a wealthy man, a bank director, and a possessor of many of the good things, which give weight to silence when such men cultivate it. But at last he was touched on a tender point. Mr Thomson, of the Clutha, brought in a Bill to prevent the creation of private townships in such styles, with such streets, and with such little provision for health, comfort and recreation, as to make them public nuisances. Then Mr Oliver burst his silent shell. For hours he and one or two others obstructed and made motions and speeches of all possible descriptions to gain time. He was then a Greyite of the Greyites and those who were of the same party felt a certain awkwardness in opposing him. Ultimately it came out that Mr Oliver was a large speculator in townships of the kind that Mr Thompson had denounced, and that many were on his hands still unsold. From that moment faith in Mr Oliver's disinterestedness as a public man was materially shaken, and he gradually slided over to the Hall party, by whom as a man of wealth, he was cordially welcomed.

In the course of time Mr Oliver became a Minister. One of Ms nrst acts in that capacity was to bring in at the fag end of the session the notorious District Kailway proposal, which would certainly have been successful but for the persistent and energetic opposition of Sir George Grey and a few of his steady supporters. That opposition saved the country an expenditure of more than half a million in buying up at fancy prices district railways made through private lands entirely to increase the value of that land to those who had speculated in its purchase and re-sale. Mr Oliver now seeks to throw all this into oblivion by abusing his opponents. His great charges against them are financial recklessness and insincerity. The man who would have wasted half a million in a single job to gratify powerful supporters charges his opponents with recklessness ! The ground on which he chiefly bases his charge of insincerity is that the Grey Ministry did not carry out the Triennial Parliaments Bill, which they had proposed as one of the main parts of their policy.

Now as to recklessness in finance. We hear this so constantly repeated that we can hardly believe the men who say it have not, some of them, learned to believe it. The best reply is a reference to one whose dicta MiOliver should be the last to question. In the days when Mr Reader Wood was in opposition— it. is only ns far hack as 10th October, 1879— he made a speech, from which we take a short extract. It was made while the vote of want of confidence in the Hall Ministry was pending and just before Mr Reader Wood behaved with such conspicuous treachery to the party which he hns since naturally, and as a matter of course, so much reviled. This is the extract :— " He (Mr Hall) has placed on the Ministerial benches members of that old ' continuous ' Ministry of which Sir Julius Yogrel was the head, which started in 1869 and lasted till 1877, which lias been the fruitful cause of all the injury this Colony has sustained, which has been the cause of the financial difficulty which the hon. gentleman (Mr Hall) would now endeavour to cast upon the gentleman who lately occupied those benches. (Major Atkinson : 'Oh ! oh !') The hon. gentleman may say oh ! oh ! but how has this financial difficulty arisen ? Simply out of that speculative system of finance which was originated in 1870, which has been continued by the liqu. gentlemam who now occupies the position of Colonial Treasurer, and ■which has now broken down. "We leave Mr Oliver and MiReader Wood to settle the matter between them in the face of the short and simple extract to which we invite the attention not only of these gentlemen but of all who glibly talk of the "reckless finance" of the Grey Ministry.

As to the Triennial Parliaments Bill its history is instructive. It will let many behind the scenes and show them what politics practically are. Both Mr Oliver and Mr Hall claim great credit for this measure. Both denounce the opposition as having really had no heart in it, ana the Grey Ministry as having neglected to pass it when they might have done so. What are the facts ? The newly formed Hall Ministry was in a minority. They were practising every possible dodge to keep oil the motion of want-of-coufidence of which Mr Macandrew had given notice. Ono of their dodges was to introduce this Bill, well knowing that among their opponents were many who would be strongly tempted to leave the want-of-confldence in abeyance while this Bill was before them. On 10th October, 1879, Mr Hall moved the second reading. Sir George Grey at once raised a question. The Bill introduced was prepared by liis Ministry, had his own name on it as the proposer, and could n6t be taken out of his hands and perhaps spoiled hy his succession. The Speaker ruled against him, and the debate went on. Mr Hall in opening the debate said, "I confess that I have thought a less violent change would have been desirable and that four year parliaments would have met the case but there is a very strong feeling in favour of triennial parliaments." MR. GEORGE M'LBAN, the right hand of the Ministry, followed MR. HALL, and said "Hitherto I have voted against this Bill, although at one time I proposed the reduction from five to four years." Otherforemostmernbers of the Goverment and of the Hall party were notoriously not only lukewarm but absolutely opposed to this Bill. Major Atkinson had voted against it in 1878. But they all with one accord went in for it now. They used it as a weapon for mere tactical purposes and were bent only on outdoing the Opposition in the attempt to gain support. They desired to keep themselves in and the Opposition out. They desired to stave off the vote in the want-of-confidence motion and to gain time while secretly negotiating witli the members who afterwards so treacheroitsly sold their party. So the Triennial Parlia-

ments Bill was introduced and made law by a party that in its heart abhorred the measure. They were impelled as they still are, not by their own convictions, but by fear of the Opposition.

The Chinese Immigration Regulation Bill which Mr Hall now boasts of as a great measure he intends bringing in is one that ought to have been passed three years ago. Sir George Grey about that time laid on the table a grand and statesmanlike memorandum showing tlte threatening character of the immigration that might a.t any time pour upon iis. He urged remedial measures and his Government prepared a Bill accordingly. The memorandum was taken exception to by Mr. Waterhouse in the Council as an irregular proceeding. However, this Bill with many similar measures of the Grey Ministry, with the Land and Income Tax Bills and others connected with the finance of the country, was brought to a dead stand by the wnnt-of-Confidence motion under Sir W. Fox as leader of the Opposition. Then came the defeat of the Grey Government and the dissolution, a new defeat and a new Ministry. Little did the Hall party care then for obstructing and delaying the measures, political and financial, which every one well knew were so mnch needed. They gained office and spent the first month in throwing all the mud they could at their predecessors. Little of it really stuck but much valuable time was lost. The Chinese Immigration Bill was not however suffered to lapse. Questions were asked of Ministers and promises given to introduce it. But the promises were not kept and in the succeeding session. Mr Hutchinson— member for Wellington — brought in a Bill which was warmly supported by Sir George Grey and by Ms par by generally. By one delay and th c other,Miuisters managed to put off the Bill and at last got Mr Hutchinson to withdraw it on the promise that they would themselves prepare one in accord with the other Australian colonies during the recess. They know well that, but for heir own opposition and obstruction, an Act would have been on the Statute Book two years ago and the evil now threatening us have been averted. But they pursued their usual policy, obstructed where they dared not defeat, and thus contrived to leave open a door to claim the whole credit for themselves and to cast suspicion on the sincerity of those opposed to them. 4, It is a wretched policy after all, demoralising to themselves, demoralising to their party, and demoralising to the country. It must destroy all faith in the sincerity of Ministers, and will certainly lead to their downfall. Meanwhile the best should be made of the position. Useful reforms should be secured, and, we need not add, bhe Government should be watched with unceasing vigilance lost it only play with these questions for party purposes. When we find it proposing such absolute shams as the socalled reform of the Legislative Council, it is necessary to see that it does not destroy with one hand what it creates with the other. It is no secret that there are many members frightened of what they call " a rabid democracy," and whose whole soul is bent on putting a bridle in the mouth of this democracy to control it. The chief menus by which they think to accomplish this nre to strengthen the Upper House and to abolish payment of members. For the latter they have special abhorrence, knowing well that without the wide choice of candidates which payment gives to the electors, all the power, all the patronage, all the legislation as to land and taxes, and all the control of the country would pass into the hands of those who could afford to spend a few months of gaiety away from their business in Wellington. Liberal legislation is of of itself be of little avail, and alwas must be, if honest and liberal administration be not .secured with it.