REJECTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue 2568, 7 September 1867, Page 2 (Supplement)

REJECTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.

-*,

[Independent, August 10.] The division on Thursday night, by which ' : the Local Government Act was thrown .out, clearly establishes the fact that a , . majority in the Assembly will not permit , ; the Ministry to persevere in their anti--1 - provincial policy. This is no doubt, so -far- satisfactory, but there are some other '- circumstances connected with the existing * r position which are not so. It is surely ' '" strange tTiat a, Government shquld have a . . main feature of its policy rejected and „,.y et remain in office. But itis said that the •S > rejected measure was not a ministerial - questionandthereforethe Government did • ; mot require to go out. This is a very unsatisfactory explanation. When Dr Peatherston, last session, warned Minis-, ' ters that the- time was close at hand when \' v a strong provincial party would be formed „ ,tb resist the encroaching policy of the j sG-eneral' Government, the gauntlet thus '. -thrown down was taken up, and the Go- <"- vernor's prorogation speech contained an ( bminous announcement that during. the

•Vrecess measures would be prepared to '"' r bbnfer powers of local self-government upon the country districts throughout „ the colony. Those who were actors in ; . the political events of that time are per-■-fectly aware that the announcement in ' question was made at the suggestion of Ministers as a reply to Dr Featherston's 7 threat. Throughout the recess the Bill intended to be brought forward was a subject of continued speculation, and • allusions were repeatedly made to it in -the speeches of one or two Ministers to . the. public. In fact, before the session was over the Ministry had indicated in ' the plainest possible manner, their inten,[Monto adopt a centralising policy, and .', this; Bill, as being admirably calculated to < I weaken the powers of the- provinces, was ! ■-• .intended to be its chief feature. To place ?<the matter altogether beyond doubt, Mr ' ; Stafford admitted the other day, in reply to Mi Dillon Bell, that certain proposals ;' in-the Local (Government. Bill were simply ../portions of a large financial scheme, and „'that if the measure were thrown out Lthe Treasurer would require to re- . model the proposals he intended bringing before the House. This shows $hafc the Bill was an important part of "the ministerial policy ; and the nature of , that policy was clearly enough indicated \. in it; as being of the most hostile character . towards the provinces. Now the political .•.history of all free countries possessing (representative institutions shows that j ; when a policy is set aside, its framers "share the same fate. The present Minis- ; try constitute an exception to this rule. : !Firmly believing that certain measures should be adopted for the benefit of the I ' country, they framed and proposed them ; but when those measures appeared certain "of rejection, they had neither the honesty nor the courage to stand by them. Their theory appears to be that no measure 'involving a constitutional change should ,/be forced upon the country until the people had pronounced whether they .wanted it or not ; but if that argument :be accepted, it follows that when the •measure had been rejected by Parliament the Government were logically bound to dissolve the House and appeal to the

country. Ministers have no intention to f #o, anything of the kind, and they are not therefore entitled to employ this argument?. They dare not go to the country with such a cry, because a general election would render the provincial party stronger than ever, and Ministers are too fond of power to incur the certainty of losing it. The position of the Govern- . mentis becoming,more contemptible every day> In every one of their cherished •schemes which have as yet been proposed, ■they have sustained defeat, and the experience of the past is a safe indication of what will be the course of events in the future. After all their talk and --boasting, Ministers, are content to remain in office with no other policy than to carry oat the will of the opposition. They form a Government which exists solely on sufferance. If G-overnment is to be carried on in this fashion, a Ministry will simply be a number of highly paid clerks, whose duty is to do the bidding of a majority in the House. There will be no necessity for any policy whatever. All required at their hands will be to bring forward a few rough drafts of measures, and invite the House to deal with them as it pleases. They might of course express a feeble opinion in favor of their own proposals, but at the same time it would bo humbly stated that as the House was the only competent judge of whatever was necessary, the measures might be cut and carved as much a3 was thought fit. It wo aid ;make no difference to Ministers, who would, whatever was agreed to, accept the result, and keep their seats. Such is the position of the present Government, and such the course which it appears they are willing to adopt. It may be an admirable system in its way, but however pleasant it is for Ministers, the people of this colony will scarcely look upon it with complacency. Moreover, the 'system has its drawbacks. The great want of New Zealand at the present moment is a sound and well considered policy, but that is rendered unattainable under the present system of compromise. What has been done in the case of the Local Government Bill : will be repeated with the budget and every other measure of importance. The Ministry will manoeuvre and compromise and make concessions — in fact, they will do everything but stand by their measures and retire from office if they are not carried. This is a strange and almost unprecedented method of carrying on ft Government, and its evil

will soon be made manifest. Itis consolatory, however, to reflect that the system cannot last for ever; Sooiier or later the old plan will be resumed of allowing the strongest party in Parliament to assume tlie reins of Government. It is only fair and reasonable that if one set of men cannot carry their measures and command the confidence of the House, they should give place, to their, opponents. W nether there will be any change of Government this session it is not easy to say. The opposition seem at present indifferent to office, so long as the Government are willing to adopt their views and carry, out their wishes. By and bye this state of things will change, but in the meantime Stafford & Co have been purged of their anti-provincial heresies and are not likely to fall back into errors which have brought with them so much that is painful and humiliating.