THE PREMIER’S ADDRESS CRITICISED.

Evening Star, Issue 7250, 29 June 1887, Page 2

THE PREMIER’S ADDRESS CRITICISED.

[Special to the Star.]

AUCKLAND, June 28,

The ‘Star,’ noticing the Premier’s address, says: The Premier’s excuse for non-reduction of the legislative expenditure is very weak. He states that he was himself willing to reduce the number of members to eighty-six, and yet it was upon his motion that the figures seventyone, which the House had inserted in the Representation Bill, were raised to ninety-one. The increase was only carried by the casting vote of the Chairman of Committees, and the Premier’s own vote would have turned the balance. To say, then, that the Government were influenced in the matter by a majority of the House is disingenuous. There is also a lack of that definiteness that begets confidence in the Premier’s retrenchment proposals. Retrenchment, to be just, must begin at the top of the service; but the Premier has made no promise in any of his speeches to propose a reduction of the Governor’s salary. Yet we do not hesitate to say that the vast majority of the people of the Colony are in favor of such reduction being carried out. We concur most heartily with the strong position which the Premier has taken up on the question of education There must be no surrender on this subject. WELLINGTON, June 28.

Reviewing the Premier’s speech, the ‘ Evening Post’ says: ” Sir R. Stout’s claim for the present Government of beiug the moat economical AdmiuL.tration the Colony has ever known, and as having made enormous savings, does not carry conviction. We do not think the present Government have been a whit better or an iota worse than their predecessors. They have been neither more economical nor more extravagant. Like all Governments, they have saved in some directions and squandered in others. Such calculations as Sir R. Stout adduced arc not iu the least to he relied on as proving anything. The fact is the Ministers have very little power in the matter of expenditure. They can check exceptional extravagance, and that is about all. If they avoid such exceptional expenditure they do pretty well all in their power. The ordinary current expenditure is practically beyond their control. The system lias to be maintained ; the machinery of administration kept going; and the money to do this has to be found, no matter what Ministry are in power. Real, substantial retrenchment can only result from an entire change in the system of aJmiui-tratiou and a spirit of self-sacrifice on the part of tho people, us represented in Parliament. No change of the system is possible without a sacrifice of the conveniences to which the people have become accustomed, and which they persistently demand through their representatives. No Ministry is strong enough to resist these demands or to even propose such changes in the system as would enable a Ministry to Jo so. A spirit of local and personal self-sacrifice must pervade the House before anj Ministry can effect any appreciable retrenchment; and before a House so actuated is iu existence the feeling must pervade the country. As no Ministry can resist the pressure of members, so no member can now resist the pressure of his constituents. The Ministry which ruthlessly closed unnecessary Courts, removed unnecessary officials, shut up unprofitable post and telpgragh offices, etc, would speedily find themselves without supporters in the House; while the member who supported such reductions amongst his own constituents would at tho first opportunity find himself out of Parliament. Until the people are willing to shed their own as well as their brothers’ blood; until they are prepared to sacrifice their own comforts and conveniences, as well as those of their neighbors, there will be no true retrenchment possible. The coming election will show whether such a stale of feeling yet exists. We do not think it dqcs. Holding these views, it necessarily follows that we must regard Sir R. Stout’s boasts of tho great things his Government have done, and the greater things they intend to do in the matter of retrenchment, as misleading and fallacious. It would be far better to tel] the plain simple truth as we have put it. There is something ludiorevs in the idea of the Cabinet, after ‘a week’s consideration, having been able to devise a scheme by which LIOO 000 a-year may be saved without inquiring the efficiency of the Government service.’ If the statement could be accepted in good faith it would imply the most serious censure on and condemnation of thi Government, who for three years have spent an nnnecesi-ary LIOO.OOQ a-year, which a week’s consideration would have enabled them to save. This statement, like a good many others, is not to bo relied on. Sir B, Stout was terribly emphatic in Us defence of tho present education expenditure. Twice over he threa ened that he would retire from political life rather than it should be interfered wither reduced. While we fully recognise his zeal and services ip the cause of education, we must demur to the introduction of the personal question into this matter. We see no reason why tho public should be offered the alternative of Sir R. Stout or economy when considering the education question. There is no reason for reducing them to such a choice; if there were, we should unhesitatingly urge them to choose economy. Sir R. Stout’s retirement from public life would un : doubtedlybe a great loss to the Colony V hut, valuable os his services are, we would rather see them dispensed with than retained at the enormous cost of maintaining the present system of education and the evils ether than extravagance which that system entails. The public will not be frightened ont of its convictions on this subject by the Premier’s twice repeated threat of shaking tho dust of public life off his shoes if his pet system is to meet with the pruning knife.”