The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1906. THE FUNCTIONS OF AN OPPOSITION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 13947, 2 January 1906, Page 6

The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1906. THE FUNCTIONS OF AN OPPOSITION.

Litekabt gifts have not been bestowed very liberally upon politicians in New Zealand, and though there are some members of tho House of Representatives capable of expressing themselves lucidly on paper; we do not often find them writing on general politics. A letter to the Premier in connection with some bridge or a letter to the local newspaper denying that he opposed the Old Age Pensions Bill is all we receive in the way of literature from the average politician. But there are occasional efforts of a mere ambitions nature and we are very glad to be able to welcome the leader of the Opposition among the prophets. It is not a great deal that he has to say on “ The Functions of an Opposition ” in his contribution to the Red Funnel,” but it is interesting to learn the view he takes of the Opposition’s work in general. He accepts, it seems, the dictum that it is the chief duty of the “outs” to act as the critics of the Administration. He quotes with approval Lord Palmerston and Disraeli to the effect that it is the “ natural occupation ” of the Opposition to find out-rif the Government is blundering. “It is the fashion now,” runs Disraeli’s assertion, “to taunt the Opposition on the ground that they have no policy, but it would be a new function for us if we had one. We are the constitutional critics of public affairs. But the originators of measures, the inventors of a policy, the individuals who come forward with their schemes and suggestions for public approbation, are not the Opposition but the Ministers of the Crown; and we stand here to criticise the suggestions and schemes which they bring forward, and which are founded on knowledge which we cannot share.” Of course, Disraeli was here answering an accusation in a sense not intended by the accuser. It is a common trick of politicians wilfully to misunderstand the point of a charge, but Mr Massey would have been better defended without Disraeli’s help. “From this,” says he, “one may see at a glance the importance of the new departure taken by the New Zealand Opposition. For it has formulated a definite policy of positive and constructive reform.” In point of fact, the New Zealand Opposition has made no new departure. There is nothing new in an Opposition formulating a policy. The Liberals have been out of office for ten years in the Old Country and they have had a policy all the time. The peculiar feature of the New Zealand Opposition is that it lias had to drag together a few disjointed planks for its platform. It is an Opposition, but not a party. It makes no appeal to the public on principles. The Liberals very often lose sight of the principles that animated the party in Mr Ballance’s day, but tho Opposition has no principles to lose sight of. It follows no guiding rule in politics. Individually its members have their, own ethical and political - standards—high standards, we freely admit—but collectively they subscribe to no set of guiding principles. When they were Conservatives they could be identified. And Conservatism, though it was out of favour in New Zealand in 1890 and 1893, was and is a /reed which many great and noble men have been proud to call their own. But Mr Massey in this wwle seems to ba definitely dis-

sociating himself and his colleagues from the party which was defeated in 1890. “ Those who understand th 4 position,” he says, “will agree with me that there are men on the Opposition side of the House who have tho principles of Liberalism as truly at heart as those on the Government side have.” We a'ro not going to quibble over a point of the kind. Probably the principles of Liberalism as they are understood in the Old Land would find little acceptance in New Zealand, where we have carried the ideas of equality of opportunity and equality of sacrifice into practical effect. Perhaps Mr Massey will agree with us that New Zealand would be all the better for a general discussion of political principles. He seems to be urging iu his article that there is no wide difference of principle -between Government and Opposition iu New Zealand and that the two parties are divided only on questions of administration. If Mr Massey examines the position closely he will probably find in the want of a clear dividing line the explanation of his party’s failure at the polls. A large vote was east against tho Administration, but no Government will bo turned out of office on its administration unless there is an alternative Government in sight inspired by a well known and clearly'understood set of political principles. Probably the Opposition in this country has suffered through too much opposing, and the public have now the ’idea that it is opposed to the principles as well as to the language of the measures it has criticised adversely in past yeans.