The Sun THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1917. AN ELECTION NEXT YEAR!

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 1162, 1 November 1917, Page 4

The Sun THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1917. AN ELECTION NEXT YEAR!

There is no danger of the sporting section of Parliament missing Car- ■ nival Week. That much is evident " from the casual concern evinced by the majority of members over the r Supplementary Estimates. Some >' show of opposition was made by those politicians who have axes to grind or complaints to ventilate, but, generally speaking, the apathy displayed by the House yesterday was quite in keeping with the attitude of members practically throughout the session. The Coali- * tion has had far too much of its own way, and the fruits of that danger- " ous policy will yet be gathered by ' Ihe people of this country. As a rule, constructive criticism in the House has been conspicuous by its absence, and when that was accompanied by an equal>ly docile acquiescence in all 8 that the Government said and did • on the part of the Press—there were but few newspapers which dared to speak their minds—it will be seen that the Coalition was in an excellent position to "gang its own gait." That it seized the opportunity was only natural, but the Dominion will - have to pay the piper for the merry tune called. To a very large extent, the House has fallen short of its responsibilities during the session, even as it did last evening on the Supplementary Estimates. Take for instance, the war bonus to the Civil Service and the railwaymen. Some justification can ' be shown for the concession to the ,; latter, but none at all for spending public money on reimburs'ng the clerical branches of the service, including officers in receipt of a salary of £315 per annum. It is nothing ; short of a scandal that Cabinet, in 1 these days of extraordinary financial stress, should make a grant of £400,000 to the State's employees on the ground that they have been hit by the enhanced prices of domestic 5 commodities. Sir Joseph Ward's explanation that every department ' which was revenue-earning would ' have to provide the amount of its bonus out of its revenue, thus obviating its grant being made a „ charge on the Consolidated Fund, will not hold water. It is, in fact, j the veriest balderdash. If the bonus of such a department is not paid out - of the Consolidated Fund it will be only because it is not paid into that - fund —as would ordinarily be the case. The fund is still suffering by reason of the fact that it has to forgo the earnings of that department. The Finance Minister, in attempting thus to make the idea of the bonus more acceptable, is simply pulling wool over the country's eyes. We are surprised that the House; having in mind the Government's plea of impecuniosity when asked to raise the allowances to the soldier's wife and children, allowed the vote to the Public Service to go through without a strong challenge. If the Dominion can afford to give "a Civil Servant receiving £0 per week all the year round—there is no broken time in the State service—a monetary solatium, surely it could be more generous to the dependents of those men who are due to be sent into the trenches next year. The only reason we can ' see for this grossly unfair diversion of public money and the House's endorsement of it is that both Ministers and members (with few exceptions) are taking thought for the I future—an election is due next year. - No matter what Sir Joseph Ward . may say, the Civil Service war bonus is a charge on the public - purse. Except in the case of the 5 lower-paid employees, say, those earning not more than £3 or " £3 10/- per week, the grant cannot possibly be justified, when the , wife of a reservist has to be content |; with 21/- per week separation allowance and her child with 7/-. Apart from this question, the matter of the Official War Correspondent deserves passing notice. Malcolm Ross, for one reason or another, has not given satisfactory service. No doubt he is hampered, as arc other correspondents, by censorship restrictions, but one of his fundamental shortcomings is a lack of imagination and a strong tendency to stodginess. He is a good reporter, but no Gibbs or even Bean, and the . front is no place for an official who i. is only a reporter. All the same, I we do not agree with those who demand that Ross should be recalled, nor do we agree with Mr Massey II that he should be paid to advertise New Zealand in British journals. The Sun has consistently refused to i. publish more than a fraction of the war correspondent's uninspired let- ' ters, but we think that the Government might well spend a little more money on the business, and allow Ross to use the cables more frequently. Better a paragraph hot from the scene of action than columns of stale detail months afterward.