The Dominion. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1908. A MISSING POLICY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 332, 20 October 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1908. A MISSING POLICY.

We have fcefore now had occasion to sympathise with the Ministerial journals in the ridiculous positions which they are forced into occupying by the obligation of defending practically every important act of the Government. A Government which lias no fixed policy except tho retention of officc, and which endeavours to' buy everybody's support, must necessarily wobble in all directions, and' it is obvious, therefore, that tho Ministerial journalist must bo prepared to wobble too—to deny to-morrow what ho affirms to-day. Some of the Ministerial journals save themselves trouble by simply caring for nothing but tho moment's necessity. Others, conscious that they may havo to reverse their expressed views, endeavour to leave themselves loopholes or escape whenever they express an opinion on any political topic. To this latter class-belongs the Ministerial organ in Christchurch, but even it fails sometimes to remember that it will have to chango its opinions. In last Saturday's issue, it furnished a delightful example of the ease with which, in such a ease, it can turu a somei-nault, and do-it with a smile-

It is a little amusing (it says) to find a number of tho followers of Mr. Mnsscy, of whom Mr. Hobcrt Scott, 0110 of tho candidates for ■ the Tuapeka seat in the now Parliament, is tho latest, excusing their opposition to the Government on the plea that Sir Joseph Ward and his colleagues have no policy. Surely this reproach might bo levelled with much greater , force against their own party. Sir Joseph Ward's policy may bo found in a hundred measures that havo boon placed on tho Statute Book during tho past three years, and if there aro any gaps to fill up the material may be obtained from tho Prime Minister's speeches.

Not less amusing, we should say, and even more interesting, is the fact that it was this same journal which quite recently was almost tearfully imploring the Government to say what its policy might be. On February 20 last—just after the Prime Minister had delivered at Auckland what the Ministerial journals told us was his "great policy speech"!—the Christchuvch newspaper mentioned complained that nobody knew what was the Government's policy.

Sir Joseph Ward (it said) delivered what was called a policy spccck at Auckland the other day, but when wo come to analyse it wo can discover no clcar exposition of the Government's intentions, nothing that can ho termed a "policy" in the accepted meaning of tho word. Tho explanation of tho Dominion's financial position was lucid and interesting, the survoy of tho party's past achievements was just and convincing, but the promiso for tho future was deplorably thin. . . . We want to speak frankly on this subject. This is election year, and a few months hence we shall havo candidates all over tho country giving their own views of what tho Liberal policy ought to be, and no two agreeing as to what it is. . . . The party has surely brains enough to shape a progressive platform.

And this is the critic who now blandly declares that "Sir Joseph Ward's policy may be found in a hundred measures that have been placed on the Statute Book during the past three years." Evidently, this amusing acrobat does not any longer "want to speak frankly on this subject." Tho time for frankness has passed: a good Ministerialist must concentrate his energy on slavishly worshipping the Government and sedulously misrepresenting the Opposition, even if by doing so he makes himself look ridiculous.

It will surprise nobody that a paper so ready to express amusement that anyone should be so idiotic as to believe what it believed itself a few months ago should be free from any scruples respecting facts. In the course of its article on Saturday, it said that "the Leader of the Opposition refuses to bo drawn on a single question of the first magnitude." And it had only a day earlier printed Mr. Massey's policy as set forth in his speech at Pukekohe. Aro there no questions of the first magnitude amongst those involved in the following issues that Me. Massey set before the electors ?—

The Native Lands Commission had already cost over £8000, and produced no tangiblo results up to now. "When were these lands to bo settled beneficently, alike for Native and European? Ought not candidates bo returned who' would be pledged to put an end for ever to the policy of "Taihoa"? Were tho electors, particularly tho country ones, going to allow office to be retained by men who, on different occasions, had proved themselves to bo the "natural enemies" of the settlers?

Is offico to be continued by men who proposed great increases of the settlors' taxes, and who had attempted to destroy the best land tenure ever discovered?

Arc our defences to bo placed on a satisfactory footing, or is New Zealand to bo left to the morcy of the first powerful enemy that chooses to attack her?

Are tho majority to tyrannise at their sweet will over tho minority? Aro both branches of the Legislature to bo made directly responsible to the people, or will tho Council continuo to bo tho nominees of tho party in power? \ Are largo sums (particularly for roads and bridges) to be voted but to remain unexpended at the close of every financial year, with the result that tho settlers will be condemned to another period of mud and misory ?

Aro the settlers to be interfered with by such restrictive legislation as tho dairy regulations ?

Is v tho present system of underhand appointments (admitting of the uso of improper influences) to be continued, or to give place to the creation of a Public Service Board?

Is the country prepared to sanction the continuance of the Public Works Fund under a system that allows people to be bribed with.promises of expenditure?

It need hardly be said that the Christchurch journal made no attempt to explain what the policy of the' Government actually is. But what sensible man can repose any confidence in a Government which cannot be supported, as we have seen in the case under notice, except by a complete disregard for common honesty and common sense 1