THE PRIME MINISTER CRITICISED

Otago Witness, Issue 3035, 15 May 1912, Page 8

THE PRIME MINISTER CRITICISED

'■ MR JAMES ALLEN'S REVIEW. A SPEECH WITHOUT A POLICY

On tbe 7th a member of our staff called upon Mr James Allen, M.P. (Bruce), and requested him to"state his opinion respecting the speech delivered by th e Prime Minister at Blaelutha on Saturady.night. Mr Allen *aid; " This speech was advertised with the expert advertising skill of the Prime Minister throughout New Zealand as the great policy speech that .was to be delivered at Balclutha I have read it, and so I suppose have the members of the party m his following, and I wohde r what they think of it. They can find some scraps of pobcy, and I Bupposo these, in the eyes of the Prime Minister, and his colleagues, are the most importaut that have to be presented to the country at the present time. The civil service should bo modernised and its methods Simplified and the shareholders in the State should get the return from their strvantf. in the civil service that the requirements demanded. ... Miany of the employees wcro satisfied and good men; it was only the duffers who were seething wif.a discontent, thinking they should get highar payCan it be that Mr Herdman. after all, is right, and that the professions, in regard to tiie civil service, of tho Ministry who have just ..departed, of whom the. Prime Minister was one, are entirely wrong? What a "condemnation of the 20 years that" have gone •by-.that,.there. w ere duffers in the service >wlio. were 'seething with discontent! ; ; ?$I suppose there is policy "hidden iib the expressions used by >the-Prime-Minis-f?M&i Why, may. we ask, has the civil ser- • trie© not. been modernised and. kept up to •late bv the Ministry .that I as. had so many years "to do the work? How is it that there are duffers? .If there are duffers- I do not say that there ' is it that they are seething with discontent? What a judgment upon himself and colleagues! That is one item of policy. They are to be modernised. • Is it to-be Mr Herdman's method? What method is it to be? He has liof told us, except; that .he' would not face the question himself, but " he hoped to appoint, three'of the ablest men in the country —ono the- ablest business man, one the ablest accountant, and "one the ablest banker - —Xo go ih :arid remodel their civil service and* bring it nip-4© the requirements of modern thought and progress.' He is setting Very near to what Mr Herdman wanted. '/Another item- of policy disclosed n the speech is that there are to be two more paid. Ministers. - I aon entirely in accord with Mr Massey that there is not the slightest .necessity' for two more paid Mbiisters: ~ There are plenty of Ministers to do _the work if they allot the portfolios fairly and if they stick to their work. But how ©an they do the work they ought to be doing, which is at the present moment learning their duties at Wellington and inquiring into the administration of their department*, "when they are parading the country attending banquets? Juat read this morning's telegrams: 'The Minister of Justice 'will attend Ministerial banquets to Mr J. C. Thomson. M.P , at Otautau on Wednesday and at Orawia on Thursday, and will probably be away until next week. The Minister has promised to open the musical and eiocutionnry competitions at Christchurch on May 14- if his other engagements permit.' That is a sampki of what nas been going on for some weeks, and this is' a new Ministry. They have a difficult job io undertake, and that is how they are undertaking it. Look at the allocation of the work of the various Ministers. Take Mr Colvin, for instance He is administering Mines, and Mines only. Do you mean to tell me that an active and capable man cannot do more than the administration of ■ the Mines Department? We know better. The fact is, with regard to these two more paid Ministers, that so far as the work is concerned there is not the slightest necessity for them But there is a necessity, in my opinion, at any- rate, that he Should be j able to strengthen his party by the in- j elusion of two more paid men. There have . been a good many after these Ministerial j billots, and there are several disappointed, j Two more appeased means an additional j strength to the Cabinet. It is not good ' enough for New Zealand, and the people ' ought to be emphatic in their protest—and I believe they will—against it. These honorary Ministers, I do not believe in then-.. They are put in also simply because they would' be discontented If they Vero not. "The wholo thing is the outcome of tho intrigue whicih has led to the present situation. The party -was defeated and discredited at the last general election. - There pan be no shadow of a doubt about it. The late Prime Minister set to work to savo his face, and the face of his party, a-nd men were -faduoed to break their pledges, and did break them, for the above purposes It lowered tSe tone -$' Par?i» teent and degraded us. This v&i madt

possible by a promise from the late Prime Minister to resign. He should have resigned as soon as the vote was over, and 1 kept his word. But he made an attempt to adjourn Parliament without the country knowing who the new Ministers were to be. The Reform party opposed this, unsuccessfully, it is true, but we were unquestionably in the right. We ought to have known who the new Ministers were before we left, and Parliament ought to have known before we left whether the new Ministry had the confidence of the House and the confidence of the country. It was to avoid this very issue that the intrigue i took placo, and Parliament was sent away without knowing who the new. Ministers were. Then either the late Prime Minister or the present one, or both together, must have advised his Excellency to proi rogue Parliament to the end of June. It ' was constitutionally wrong to have done so, beciiuso to do so they must have assured his Excellency that the new Prime Minister had the confidence of Parliament and the country. That could 1 not be truthfully ' said "without their meeting Parliament and ascertaining the position, and that they plotted to avoid, and did avoid,. Again, .our i parliamentary institutions have been lowered and degraded 1 , and the people ought to resent it. ' . ! "It is difficult to find anything else of ' policy in the speech, and I am sure that members of his party who pledged themselves to the policy declared in the recent Governor's Speech must have read through the Prime Minister's remarks with bitter disappointment. There is not a word 1 in commendation of any one of the proposals in the Governor's Speech. Why not? This was la policy speech. What, for instance, has lie said with regard to the principles contained in'the Local Government Bill.' I'hat bill was prepared by the late Cabinet, of which he was a member. His work is in it. It represents his policy. Is he prepared to change that as the tide changes, or will he to his principles on the LocaU GoI vernment Bill? It is all very well to call representatives together now to consider the bill That should have been done before they produced their measure. The measure represents their opinions, and if they have any grit in them they will stick to their opinions. He has not a word to say in support of the Local Government Bill. All that he tells the people is, " If you do not like it we will alter it for you." " I think it is quiie unnecessary for me to say much about the bulk of the * speech, which is made up of replies to imaginary I attacks on him, modifying some of his 1 opinions, and damaging communications about loans. They exist largely in his own imagination. It would be interesting to the I country to know which of his opinions he has modified. He only told us of two at j Balclutha. He had altered his opinion about the grading of produce and in connection with the Bank of New Zealand, but 6till hung on to the majority of his political convictions of early years—tenures, trade, and many other matters. How is he going to get on with his colleagues in the matter ! of tenures and trade and the many other j matters? What has- he to say to Mr I Laurenson about the endowment policy? In 1907, at Wyndham, Mr Mackenzie said: I 'The endowment policy is largely a will-o'-the-wisp scheme, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, and meant as a sop to ' the city. It is largely an effervescent 1 drink. Fowlds is the soda, Laurenson the J acid, and M'Nab the water, and were it not that it threatens to interfere with our I prospective settlers and satisfactory | opening up of unused country we might look on it with indifference." " There are two gems in the speech—(l) that he 'had no time to prepare a policy speech and (2) that 'if he were to deliver a policy speech, and at the instigation, be it remembered, of the Conservative press and of Mr < Massey's followers, it would simply be torn and riven to pieces.' lie can have but little faith in his policy and its acceptance with the country if he fears such a fate for it, and if the policy that he is to present to the country will be 'torn and riven to pieces," why are he and his colleagues there? Would it not be fairer to the country to lot it know now what that policy is rather than in the Governor's Soeech or at any later time? The country surely is entitled to digest what is to come from this curious combination, and the digestive process ought to be as long as possible. " There are one or two other things in the speech that I want to allude to — namely, that what he has said in reply to Mr iMassey is not an answer to Mr Massey's challenge. The Prime Minister was challenged to name any member of the Reform party who 'had published anything in England to the detriment of this country or of its loans. He gets out of it by saying he alluded to the Conservatives in New Zealand, and not to the Reform party, and he names nobody. What right has he to assume that any Conservative, Liberal, or Reform member has sent any damaging material to Londop? I will guarantee to say t&at no member of the Reform party hao ever done such ft thing, and has

no other puipose than to uphold the stability of this country on every occasion.. Tt will be interesting- to know whether MiMackenzie and the colleagues ol the late. Prime Minister themselves know even the d»:to on which the loan was to be floated. My opinion is that not on© of them kne.y, except the Prime Minister himself, and if I am net mistaken there was some surprise showin by the other members of the Cabinet when they knew the loan had been floated. Then with regard to the loan itself, the Prime Minister has surely not been quite candid with the people. It is not correct to tell the people that the five-million loan. cost only £lll,OOO. It cost that amount, and in addition close on £BO,OOO for discount, and in addition to that all the cost of conversion of the part that was converted, and that amount we do not know. It would be a considerable sum, because the conversion was giving to those who converted £2 in every £IOO. .. . "There is one other remark that calls for comment. It is under the heading The Cost of Living.' The Prime Minister was quoting from some article, apparently in an English newspaper. It is to the effect that were Sir Joseph Ward to stop his borrowing policy he would have to turn round to his grumbling and discontented subjects and say, ' Pay your way out of your own resources henceforth,' and he makes the direct accusation that this article was based on what was sent Home .by the friends of the Opposition. Again. I am afraid, he is not very accurate. It is quite easy to find remarks made, not by members of the' Opposition or their friends, which would lead a leading article writer to pen such sentences. The late Prime Minister, in 1910, I speaking at Ashburton, said that ' to stop I borrowing would affect trade right off the reel, and the rate of interest would jump up like a cork out of a soda-wateir bottla.' That is a damaging enough statement, and . to. it can be added the remarks of a prominent supporter of the late Prime Minister's party who admitted that ' the only remedy this country had at the present time for unemployment was borrowed*money ' —so late as 1911. If, therefore, one wants to find damaging statements with regard to New Zealand they can be discovered, as I have just shown, amongst members of the late Administration and their supporters. " But, after all, what is the good' of all these recriminations? The Prime Minister's speech is full of them. Ho was speaking as Prime Minister —the first speech that he made after coming into office. . He was speaking in the district which first returned him to Parliament. It was advertised throughout the country that he was going to give a great policy speech. Surely the insinuations' and the little things that he dealt with, and which covered so many columns of the nev.spaper, might have been left out, and in place of it we might have had a bold, statesmanlike policy, but we cannot find it. " There is another point. Speaking in Christchuroh on May 2, the Prime Minister taid: 'Mr Massey is not the man his •friend's will look to. They realise that he had his opportunity last election, and bungled the whole campaign.' Now, I suppose I know Mr Massey and the feeding of his supporters as well as anybody, and I unhesitatingly say that his friends do look to him, aid predict for him a splendid career. Hie policy did' not bungle the last election camj aign. He produced a solid party of 35 rueii, who are prepared to stand by him. When it is realised what the party was in numbers when Mr Massey took the leadership, the improved conditions of the party to day are a record that any man might be proud of, especially under the circumstances —the cirumstancs being that he had to do this almost entirely out of his own pocket, no travelling expenses allowed by the State, and to give up hits time and his money for his ideal—that is, to do his duty towards his country. As a matter of fact, Mr Massey would have been in office today if those whom he assisted to into the House had kept their pledges. ' MR MASSEY'S VIEWS. AUCKLAND, May 7 Referring to the Prime Minister's speech at Balclutha Mr Massey said that what Mr Mackenzie did was to give a quotation from an anonymous letter, which he says appeared in a London financial journal, and he did not even give the name of the journal referred to. The Prime Minister's reply was a miserable quibble, and he (Mr Massey) repeated his former reply that any statement to the effect that any member ot Ihe Opposition had attempted to Injure the credit of the country in ajiy way was absolutely contrary to fact. The knowledge that'the five million loan had been floated in London came to the House as a surprise, and outside the Cabinet not a 6ingle member or Parliament had the slightest idea, of the intention of the Government to place such a largo loan upon the money market at the time. There was nothing else in Mr Mackenzie's speech as reported in Auckland except the mere point that Mr Mackenzie paid that he (Mr Massey) had said that a Mackenzie could always be bought. To thio Mr Massey replied: " It is a paltry thing in

the extreme, and it is also untrue." As' a matter of fact I have sent a telegram to Mr Mackenzie as follows:—" Will you give me your authority for your statement that I said Mackenzie could always be bought"

PRIME MINISTER CRITICISED, ME A. S. MALCOLM AT BALCLUTHA. 8 ■ (From Our Special Reporter.) BALCLUTHA, May 8. In the Oddfellows' HaJd to-night Mr A. S. Malcolm, M.P., delivered a speech on behalf of tne Reform party, in reply to the Prime Minister'e address at Balclutha on Saturday night. There were about 200 persons present. Mr D. Stewart (Mayor of Balcl/utha), who presided, said the political parties were divided almost equally at the present time, and so far as one could judge the balance of power was held by four members, one of whom was Mr Payne.— (Laughter.) It was clear that no satis'factory legislation could be carried on under these conditions. —(" Hear, hear.'') It was his own opinion that the views of Mr Massey and Mr Mackenzie in all essentials were practically the same, and the country ought to have the best talent from both sides of the House to carry on the affairs of the country. In othe:words, hig view was that there should be a coalition, and he thought, the majority of the people in the. country took that view.—(A Voice : " No.") Mr Malcolm, who was greeted with applause, expressed his regret at the death of the Hon. Mr M'Gowan. Proceeding, he said he was hoping. that within a reasonable time of the division which' ' would take place soon after the House met the Hon. T. Mackenzie might be found supporting Mr Massey, even though j it might be in the position of a member of the rank and file of Mr Massey's party. He (Mr Malcolm) was not in the habit of indulging in party wrangles. . This was the first time he had given from the platform what was distinctly and wholly a party speech. He had always preferred to devote himself to the consideration of questions of benefit to the country rather than to the interests of one party or the other.—(Applause.) Ministers were now visiting different parts of New Zealand, and were again and again making most outrageous statements in regard to the Opposition, and particularly to the leader of the party, and so he felt justified in stating the facts from the party point of view. He could not help noticanig on Saturday night that the Prime Minister was anything but nappy. There was an awkwardness apparent throughout his address. Probably he felt that the audience he was addressing recognised how absurd it was that Mr T. Mackenzie should come on to a platform in Balclutha and try to play the part of a hard-and-fast and true Liberal.—(Applause.) On more than one occasion Mr Mackenzie must have felt awkward recently. The Hon. G. W. Russell, speaking in Taranaki the other day with Mr Mackenzie sitting beside him, indulged in the loudest and fiercest denunciation of the old Oppoevidently forgetting that every word he was saying applied to his own leader, the present Prime Minister. In some ways the Opposition regarded recent events as a compliment and a tribute to themselves. For instance, in electing MiMackenzie as their leader they were practically passing a vote of confidence in the Opposition, which they had so frequently denounced. Mr Mackenzie had been actively associated with the Opposition for very many years. Even when he changed his coat three or four years ago he announced at Wadkouaiti that in no essential matters had he changed his opinions. That wad to say, he was still in sympathy with the Opposition, and yet the. Liberal party elected that man who, but for the name, was and is an Oppositionist, as their leader, and in that way they gave the lie to all their statements and to all their denunciations of the Opposition in days gone past.—(Applause.) Not only did they elect Mr Mackenzie as their leader, but they submitted to the throwing overboard of all their leaders, and what was that but passing a vote of no-confidence in the old Liberal Administration? (Applause.) Apart from that aspect, the * Opposition resented the occupancy of the Treasury benches by the present Ministry, because at the elections the constituencies returned 40, or a majority of members

pledged to vote against the Liberal Administration. If the promises had been kept Mr Maseey should have been Prime Minister, but that result was not achieved because two men had broken-the most eolemn pledge a member of the House' could give—a pledge to his constituent*. He knew what ought to be thought of a party that lived on the dishonour of any of its (supporters, and he hoped that the present Ministry would be thrown out of office at the earliest possible moment. The Opposition was not greedy for office, but they felt that a wrong had been done to the constituencies, and that the expressed wash of the people at the ballot box had not been given effect to.—(Applause.) Some of the statements made by members of the Government were almost too silly for words. One of them was the Hon. Mr Russell "s assertions that the Opposition, confident of victory, had a magnificent banquet prepared to celebrate their accession to office. Fancy a Minister of the Crown drawing £IOOO a year and extras travelling 100 miles to talk twaddle of that sort. As a matter of fact the Opposition had not dreamed of any banquet, and hod not even given an" order for a* sixpenny cake. The Opposition would not have triumphed oyer their victory, because they recognised that defeat would have been sore enough punishment* to their opponent*. Air Mackenzie had stated some time ago that the challenges issued to him w6uld be answered at the proper time. Then, why did he not reply to thehi last Saturday night? Instead the people were informed what a busy man the Prime Minister was. He was so busy that he had not time to substantiate the charges he had made. If so, he should not have had time to make them. —(Applause.) What had he done? One could almost see him rolling up his sleeves and saying, " I have no doubt that if I cared to do it I could "smash, the Opposition into smithereens'."— (Laughter.) All Mr Mackenzie's specific charges had broken down. It was often said that the Opposition were Tories and Conservatives. If that were true, let them look at the Hon. Thomas Mackenzie, who was also a Tory and Conservative. He (Mr Malcolm) recognised that there had been a period in the history of the Opposition when they had carried opposw tion to extreme lengths. During that period they had opposed measures some of which had subsequently been proved to be the finest measures ever placed on the Statute Book of this country; but Mr Mackenzie was one who had assisted the then Opposition in the obstruction, and, as a matter of fact, the Opposition since those days had greatly changed. There were few members in the Opposition today who were in the Opposition of the old days. To-day the Opposition consisted largely of young men who were as progressive and as liberal-minded as any, country could wish for. The Opposition had learned its lesson in the school of adversity, and had been in the cold shades outside the Government for twenty odd years. It had recognised the unwisdom of the Opposition in the old days, with the result that, he believed, the members of the Opposition to-day were in many senses more liberal and more progressive, with a better policy and more active ideas, than the Administration that had recently disappeared from * office. — (Applause.) It was also said that the Opposition was the friend of the monopolists and the rich men. No doubt there were some large landed proprietors and wealthy men who supported the tion, but on the other hand that was equally true of the Government. As for the monopolists, he did not know of any who were supporting the Opposition outside the large landed proprietors. But what about the brewers? He was glad to say that the Opposition did not have support in the House from a single brewer. The party of Liberals had two brewers supporting it, and, according to the Liberals, brewers were the most obnoxious class of monopolists that could be imagined. At the last election the brewers were against the Reform party and worked for the Government. The man whose monopolies and wealth were his politics did not support the Opposition for the reason that he knew lie could expect nothing from the Reform party. He knew that th« Reform party was not in a position to give him what he wanted. ' He had gone to the party he could get something out of, and that was the Liberal party.—(Applause.) It was claimed that the Liberal Government was the friend of the ho/ny-handed man.

but on the night of the delivery of the Budget in Parliament, the great night in Wellington, who was it that came forward to adulate the Prime Minister upon his magnificent Financial Statement? Was it the horny-handed son of toil ? No; it was the man with the silk hat, the man with the frock coat, and the man with the gloved hand who adulated the Prime Minister.—■-_( Applause.) He referred in general terms to his party's position, and remarked that .it had other planks which had not yet been ma4e public that it was prepared to put into legislative effect if it got the opportunity. As each ■ new Parliament met it was Mr Massey's habit to call the members of his party together in caucus and to seek their approval of the platform that the party in the preceding Parliament had approved of. Lost ses-. sion, in accordance with this practice, the items in the platform were submitted to the members of the Reform party, numbering 38. When the list was read out one member stood up, and mentioning one of the items, • said '' That hits me pretty hard, but I am with you, gentlemen, because I know that is for the good of the country.*'—(Applause.) Mr Malcolm went'on to say that the party admired Mr Massey's honesty of purpose and the absence of craft and cunning in him.—(Applause.) He (the speaker) could not accuse the present Prime Minister of refraining from " lip service." In one way, he remarked, it had been very amusing, but in another way it had been very sickening to see during the short session how the Hon. T. Mackenzie " smoodged " to the Labour members, in whose hands lay the success or failure of the no-confidence motion. It was amusing, and yet disgusting, because only a few years ago Mr Mackenzie in his Waikouaiti speech proclaimed himself as the one who had been sent to arrange, if possible, a coalition between the two branches of the house in order to stem the advance of' Socialism and extreme Radicalism.— (Applause.) It had often been said that Mr Massey was a very fine fellow, but would never make a leader. Now what was the test- of a leader ? One of the severest tests was that he should be unsucoeesful and yet command the confidence and support and even the affection of his followers. That was what Mr Massey 'had gained.—(Applause.) Not a member of his party had ever " turned dog " on him,, with the exception, perhaps, of the hon. gentleman who spoke in Balcjutha last Saturday night.— (Laughter and applause.) In answer to an interjection Mr Malcolm said that Mr Massey had mode a mistake in reading the letter in connection with the Payne affair in the House, but he was man enough to get up and apologise for having read it. A "Voice : Mr Massey said he wouid read the original. Mr Malcolm : No. He did not make such a promise. Mr Massey would sooner have gone right out of politics than betray the confidence of any man who had written to him. —(Applause.) Mr Malcolm proceeded to frankly criticise Mr Mackenzie's administration of the departments under his control, especially those of Agriculture and Commerce. Mr Mackenzie had claimed that he had done a lot for the producers of New Zealand. He (the speaker) had looked carefully into the matter, and found that Mr Mackenzie had made only two recommendations —in re the appointment of a Government grader and the appointment of a New Zealand assessor. The producer still graded hi 6 own produce, and the insurance rates were still very high. He quarrelled violently with a number of men in London, but his action had no permanent result in assisting the producer in this country to get a higher price for his produce. He must give Mr Mackenzie credit for always succeeding in getting his own actions put in the beet possible light. He confessed to having spent much time over studying Mr Mackenzie's policy and speech, but he could not afford time to analyse all its trivialities. He would only say that the speech was the Government's own condemnation. It was unilluminated by a single valid thought. It was barren of ideas, and devoid of enthusiasm, and if the Government had nothing better than that to offer it would not be surprising if the people of the country came to the conclusion that the Government as early ns possible should be displaced from the Treasury benches —(Applause.) After replying to several questions put by two men, Mr Malcolm, on the motion of Mr Joseph Parker, seconded by Mr John Sandilands, was accorded a hearty vote of thanks and confidence.