The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1909 THE FINANCIAL DEBATE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 666, 17 November 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1909 THE FINANCIAL DEBATE.

I The debate which opened last, evening on the Budget proposals of the Govei'ninent was remarkable for two statements by. the Minister deputed to reply on behalf of tho Government; to . the speech of the Leader bf the Opposition. Me. Massky . had made a very good party speech, spoilt, .to somo extent, by. an endeavour to crowd too much into the limited time permitted under the Standing Orders. Some of his points were extremely well made, but others were hurried through at express - speed and suffered in consequence. On the whole, however, ho succeeded in building up a strong indictment against the Goternmeiit, especially in the matter of its extravaginde and in respect of its land But tho most .damaging things said about the Government, so far ■ .'as the. early speakers. 'in the . debate are concerned, were those given utterance to by the Minister who essayed the task of its defence. Mr. t l owi/DS has seldom , been seen to worse advantage. He opened rather well, but fts he proceeded lie floundered badly and Committed indiscretions which must havo made his party, chief extremely' uncomfortable. It is iiot bur purpose, how : ever, to follow _ the 3peccnc3' in. detail, but rather, to direct. attention to two of tho statements of . Mr. Fowlds which excellently illustrate the inability of Ministers to realise tho responsibility resting on them, and which show their complete and opon disregard of political priilciples. Mn. Massey, in the course of his speech,'had . laid down the principle that it..was the duty, o£ Ministers, to ascertain' the requirements of the country in the matter of borrowing, and theii expend the money to the very, best advantage. ;But Ministers must 'take' the. responsibility. The reply of Mit. FoWlds was typical of the methods which prevail in_ our politics to-day. According to tho Minister,- it is not the Government,, but every member of the House who is responsible., This . answer has just ' sufficient ,i of . truth' .' in it to make it .plausible, but as an actual fact it is a hollow and empty sham. . Theoretically, Parliament controls tho public; purse, but' to pretend, that in actual anyone but tho' members .of the Cabinet oxercise that control is -to insult the intelligence of the House and of the country. How often, during the past fifteen years, havo individual members objected to the financial proposals of the - Govornmeht; and how often have they been successful in forcing the Government to modify its, extravagance? We can hardly call to niind a single occasion on which, tho Government' has not been able to' force its financial proposals through Parliament in spite of any opposition offered. And yet Mr. Fowlds pretends that individual members control Ministerial actions: and aro equally responsible with Ministers! The truth of the matterr-s, as everyone knows, that Ministers decidp in. advance, tlie . Goyethment following endorses without question, and opposition by a small-minority is futile. The Dreadnought offer was a recent and . outstanding illustration bf this, and in smaller matters exactly the same system, prevails.; The government of thoV country has in effect over to the Executive, and as the Executive is completely dominated by the : Pbime Minister, we have a so-called democracy to all intents and purposes governed, by one man. ..

The action of the Minister for Education in attempting to place on; members a responsibility which, they all know they have long relinquished will serve: ; to draw pointed attention to an evil which has crept into our public life. It should also bring home. forcibly to members themselyes that, they .cannot shelter behind., their party leaders. It _ is their, plain duty, as Unintentionally indicated by Mii. Fowlds,- to inquire for themselves' bef of 6 accepting 'tne prbpoSak of Ministers.' They are stint to l'alliameiit hot tp do as Ministers may direct,but to act as their jiidgmept may difctate ih the interests of their' constituents and the CoUhtty. as a whole. Of course every tucttibei* knoWs that his duty lies in this direction, 'but unfortunately members, have failed: to reedghise. that their duty ill this rcspcct is i higher one than their Obligation to their party leaders. _ Had they: realised this and acted:.accordingly, they Wbuld have'found that, instead,of to-day' being subservient to the will of Ministers, they would have been able to force Ministers to their will and to place a. proper restraiht bh the eitravagalice and bxcessiye borrowing fthich- seem inseparable'from the presebt Prime Minister. The secoiid remark of the Minister for Education, to. whidh 'we wodld direct attention, is that Which discloses his strange misconception of what constitutes p. political principle. The country is So well aware that the Government has sacrificed its professed determination to " stick,to the .leasehold " at all hazards, that' it is superflliSUs to touch on the matter in: detail. Thb defence Which Me. FoWlds put forward ' for this fihanojd bf froilt was to state that Ma. Lloyd-George, since ho had brought down his Budget proposals, had agreed to alterations in them. His contention in effect was that, the British Government had sacrificed its principles to expediency as the New Zealand Government had done. Nothing could be further-from the truth. Mn. Fowtiis quite plainly knows very little of political principles, and still- 1 less of the importance and value attached to them by'the statesmen of Great Britain. The Asqtjith Government _ not only has not Sacrificed the principles underlying its-' Budget proposals, but is prepared to stand or fall by them. And, this iB, the attitude of all political parties ih England.: They are guided. by_ settled principles arrived at aftor careful consideration of their probable effect on-the country. They tnay be oi' they mav bo; wroiig, "but. thby jjlace their political .principled before'

their, personal interests—they place the interests- of the country before the welfarc,of their party, and would no more think of sacrificing their principles for tho Bake of retaining office, than the Government of this country would think of sacrificing office to its principles,. This may appear a harßh way of putting the position, but overyono knows that it is the plain truth.. The Government has no. political principles, and judging from the attitude, of. Mr. Foavlds it is not very much .concerned. about ..the ; matter, : -This is an-extremely bad thing for the country.-.. We can understand a Government hastily, embarked on a- particular line of policy, and finding it an unwise' one, changing,its-.yiews from honest conviction, of its mistake. But when a Government to-.day,; professes that the line of policy which it places before the country is absolutely, essential to tho welfare of tho. country, and, twelve months later completely reverses its policy .merely because it thinks that it may loso the 'support of a large, sectionvbf the ;public if-it adheres to it, it must be. plain to everyone that that Government's only Concern is. to reoffice..: With such a Government, the .interests of the public are in constant peril. Sound, "government is sacrificed to expediency, and. the demands of. sectional interests are permitted to outweigh 'the interests.of-the community as a whole. It is quite time that the public con sidered this aspect of the political situation. At a late, hour last evening an important announcement, I>earing out our contention as to tho lack of. principle underlying the Government's actions, was moved by Mr. T. E. Taylor. We must reserve our comment on the important issue .raised by tho member for Christchurch .until to-morrow. .