THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Otago Witness, 1 June 1910, Page 6

THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

It is to be regretted if the Minister of Agriculture should feel discouraged by some of the criticism, which has necessarily been evoked by the operation of the Government's scheme of retrenchment. His is one of the few departments in which economies have really been made, and it would be unfortunate if he were also to be affected by that feeling of despair which seems to have seized most of his colleagues and led to the abandonment by them of their virtuous resolutions to reduce the cost of the administration of the services respectively controlled by them. Ml' Mackenzie actually succeeded in reducing the cost of the Departments over Avhich he presides from £219,690 in 1908-9 to £189,914 last year. The economies that were introduced by him brought the cost of these Departments down to about the figure represented By it two years ago. In part they were achieved: by the reduction in the number of persons employed by the Departments from 632 in 1908-9 to 572 last year. And incidentally, of course, this circumstance affords proof of the validity of certain of the very criticism to which Mr Mackenzie objects. It is perfectly evident that, if the services furnished by these Departments are not less efficiently performed now than they were before so many persons wero discharged from employment, there must previously have been a wasteful expenditure. The dismissal of so many persons in the service of these Departments itself involved an

' admission of extravagance in administration. Wo are not so sure, however, that Mr Mackenzie is entitled to claim credit for having, as he put it at Owaka, insisted upon efficiency even while the pruning-knife was being applied. The complaints which—to mention two points only—have been reaching us from many parts of Otago relative to the increase of the rabbit pest and those which are general in country districts throughout the Dominion with regard to the extension of the nuisance of noxious weeds convey a direct implication of inefficiency of administration in two respects of moment to the farming community. It would be unjust to condemn the Department of Agriculture for the expenditure of even large sums upon experimental work that is calculated to prove of ultimate benefit to the community. But it is quite evident, from what Mr Mackenzie himself has been saying in some recent speeches, that the Department had been disbursing considerable sums upon objects that were not likely to yield any satisfactory return. And it may fairly be doubted whether the work that is done at the State farms which are dotted over the North Island, where the soil is different, the temperature is different, and the climate is different from those of the South Island will be of a great deal of use to southern farmers. There is no question, however, that the existence of the Department of Agriculture has been fully justified. Though money may have been spent foolishly by it in various directions, the service alone which it rendered to the dairying industry through the adoption, upon Sir John M'Kenzie's decision, of the system of grading of produce has been of immense value. And there are manydirections in which its activities may be extended with advantage to the rural interests and, therefore, to the whole community. Mr Mackenzie is so full of energy and so greatly fired with enthusiasm that the public may view with a good deal of confidence his administration of this Department. And the farmers of the country always listen to him with pleasure and, we may add, with profit when he is discussing matters relating to his Department. But they may he excused if it is with impatience that they hear him scolding certain unnamed detractors of New Zealand whom his words will probably never reach, when he vainly attempts to disprove the transparent fact that much of the so-called retrenchment by the Government is a mere

sham, and when he renounces the views he used to express concerning the public indebtedness and professes to believe that a scatter-cash policy is not inconsistent with the exercise of prudence.