MINISTRY CRITICISED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16590, 13 July 1917, Page 6

MINISTRY CRITICISED.

SIR JOHN FINDLAY'S SPEECH. RUMOUES OF DISSENSION. [BT TELEGRAPHSPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.] WELLINGTON. Thursday. The record of the National Ministry was reviewed this evening by Sir John Findlay (Hawke's Bay) in the debate on the Address-in-Reply. He said that, to his mind, the National Cabinet resembled not so much a legislative as an executive Government, governing less by Act of Parliament than by Order-in-Council. Sir John Findlay eulogised the great work done by the Minister for Defence, but censured his blind and unreasoning support of his subordinates. The visit of the Prime Minister and the Minister for ! Finance to Britain was bound to widen the horizon of the country. It had i created an ideal which led us in the direction that New Zealand must not live and act for herself alone, and thereby helped to prepare the way for the new British! Empire which was going to arise after the | war. Though the taints of the Ministry j were as thick as dust in empty chambers, , he was bound to refer to the magnificent ; service rendered by Sir Joseph Vv ard in! placing the Dominion on a sound financial baiis by the arrangement he had made in connection with its loans. Continuing, Sir John Findlay said he did not think the personnel of the National Cabinet represented the ablest men in the House. The principle of selecting Ministers in even numbers from both sides was bad. The ablest men should be '. 'selected, even if they were outside the j House, and the calling of the ablest men to the councils of the country would have I avoided the necessity for all kinds of boards, the very existence of which proved the incapacity of the Government. He urged that if the Government was not working with a spirit of harmony, it must govern inefficiently, and rumour—loud, distinct and articulateindicated that the members of the National Cabinet were not acting with the fine co-operation! necessary to efficiency. He complained i that the Government was not sufficiently ' candid with the House. With a nonparty House, such secrecy was unwarranted. The House should not be left in the dark as to the data on which the Government was acting. The main fault of the Government was its inability to grasp the nettle of its difficulties. Boldness was greater than prudence in a crisis such as that through which we were passing. Courage, just but firm, that would lay hands on monopoly and exploitation was what the country needed. As its first great national duty he considered it was the business of the Government to promote (1) equality of sacrifice; (2) national efficiency and economy; (3) that the best provision should be made for returned soldiers ; and (4) ample provision for discharged soldiers and dependants. He criticised the tenderness of the Government towards wealth. If it Kad been conscripted as soldiers had been, there would be no shortage of means with which to provide our men with adequate pay and pensions. The amendment of the law regarding the taking of land compulsorily, which was made in the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act last year, he denounced as entirely in the interests of land owners, while though it was known that land valuations had enormously increased ! since the war commenced, no revision of valuations had been made. Scandalous reductions of rent had been given to Crown tenants, the fruit, of which was that the capital value of land purchased under the Lands for Settlement Act had been written down by hundreds of thousands of pounds. This showed that either the original price paid for land was improperly high or that the public purse had been improperly relieved.