The Westport Times. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1869.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 580, 13 November 1869, Page 2

The Westport Times. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1869.

Tue Provincial form of government has lately been " on its trial " in one of the Provinces in which it has been most faithfully carried out, and the interests of which it has most faithfully served—the Province of Canterbury. From no intrinsic fault in the form of government itself, but in consequence of the altered and altering circumstances of the Province, a feeling has for some time prevailed that, at least, some modification of its administrative institutions might be made with safety and with satisfaction to all. By the inhabitants of the Province generally this feeling has not been specifically expressed, but by the Provincial Council it has been, and it may, without any great stretch of courtesy, be accepted that the Councillors do in some degree represent the desire of the inhabitants. In a former session of the Council, and by one of its members, Mr Buckley, Provincial institutions as they at present exist were formally indicted ; but the debate, if we remember rightly, terminated without any definite decision being given. During the present session the same Member has tabled a series of propositions, declaring the necessity for amendment in the constitution of the Government, and these propositions have been substantially affirmed by the House. On account both of their novelty and the radical changes which an adoption of them by the legislature of the country would involve, these resolutions must be interesting to all the Provinces. But in this Province the debate, to which they gave rise, if not the resolutions themselves, must be especially interesting. In view of this especial applicability to Nelson of many of the assertions made by the Canterbury Councillors, we notice thus prominently the discussion and its results.

Mr Buckley's propositions, as they were first presented to the Council, were somewhat sweeping—pointing to a reduction of all powers to do anything more than to pass what he somewhat ambiguously described as " bylaws." But the sense of the Council did not go thus far with him. The necessity for continued power to "legislate" ou a certain number of given subjects was admitted and, by substantive resolution, expressed. The changes which he proposed in the relations between the Provincial Council and the Superintendent were, however, adopted; and the following are the resolutions, as passed by the Council, and as, by their instructions, transmitted to the Colonial Secretary and the Speakers of both Houses of the Legislature :

1. That the Superintendent of the Province should bo elected and rcmovcable by the vote of an absolute majority of tha Provincial Council, and should hare a seat in the Council, and a right to vote therein. 2. That the legislative powers of the Council should cease, except aa to those subjects on which Provincial Councils may be authorised by the General Assembly to legislate. 3. That the Superintendent should not have a veto on the legislation of the Provincial Council.

Perhaps the most important, as well as the most startling, of these propositions is the first. Adopted by the Colony generally, it would involve a constitutional change in the government of the country the lull effect of which it would bo difficult to realise by anticipation. In the Province of Nelson it would certainly involve a change which should recommend itself much to popular favor; for here, if anywhere, is there a painful realisation of the fault found with present Pro vincial institutions by one of Mr Buckley's supporters —that " there are now two Houses—the Superintendent being the one, and the Provincial Council the other." Here, if anywhere, does this fault exist, for not only is it the persoTial disposition of the Superintendent to be " a house " in himself, but by an Ordinance as subversive of responsible government and Provincial institutions as any Ordinance that was ever passed —the Nelson Executive Ordinance the Superintendent can form, in addition to himself, an Executive of live, altogether beyond either appointment or dismissal by the Provincial Council. Here, if anywhere, and in consequence alone of such an anomalous institution,, the popular voice may be expected to approve of such a change as Mr Buckley suggests. But throughout the Colony generally the suggestion is not one which is likely to be received without much debate. Perhaps the feelings opposed to it are best and most briefly expressed in the words of Mr Tancred, who contends that the chief executive officer of the Province should not be elected by the Provincial Council, and on these grounds —he " ought not to exercise his functions as the delegate of the Provincial Council ; the Council should act as a check on the Superintendent, and the Superintendent as a check on the Council." With the subject started, and after discussion in others of the Provincial Councils, no doubt some happy compromise will be suggested which will meet more fully the views of those who are advocates

of a continuance of responsible government, while it will satisfy those who desiderate a reduction of our Provincial Governments to the condition of mere municipalities. Mr Buckley's second resolution, in the amended form in which it was passed, means nothing more than that the Assembly should defiue the subjects upon which Provincial Councils should not " legislate." But this is already provided for by the Constitution Act. There is already in existencea sufficiently long list of exceptions to the range of a Provincial Council's powers, and we are not aware of any great necessity for an addition being made to these exceptions. Much less is there any urgency of necessity for the General Assembly undertaking the management of the municipal or vestry matters with which Provincial Councils have often to deal. None of the " legislative " efforts of the General Assembly or of the General Government's legal assistants have, indeed, shown any superior capacity for the framing of ordinances of the order " domestic," nor will it be generally desired, so long as there is only one Assembly for the two islands of New Zealand, that the House of Eepresentativea should do the work which is now done by Provincial Councils.

The third resolution, with regard to the Superintendent's power of veto, was supported principally by the argument that, so long as it existed, "it would be impossible to get rid of responsible government or to avert those dead-locks which are certain to ensue." Now it happens that in Nelson we have the vetoing power in full force —we have a permanent deadlock —yet we have no " responsible government," either fictional or real. No doubt the vetoing power is the one characteristic of Provincial Governments which gives ground for the complaint that they are elaborate and purposeless imitations of governments fitted for an entire colony or nation. A great deal depends, however, upon the " discretion " of a Superintendent —the very word which is used in the Constitution Act. There have been cases in which a Superintendent's veto has been proved to have been wisely exercised. There are others in which the mere withholding of a Superintendent's consent has simply been done in anticipation of the Governor's decision, whose delegate the Superintendent is in some particulars, including this power of veto. The abuse of the power is represented —and fully represented in this Province—by a Superintendent's declaration that he will give no heed to the Council's votes even on such subjects as officials' salaries, great or small. Thus exercised, the veto is a sure source of deadlock ; and the disadvantages of a deadlock tho Province of Nelaoii lina vnly realised in a subdued form because the Superintendent is really supreme. The work of the Province goes on—according to the directions of the Superintendent. The Council only protests, if it does so much. Let us hope that the new Council, guided by the example of Canterbury, will protest, and to some purpose.