THE Temuka Leader. 4THURSDAY, MAY 7,189 G. \ THE GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2968, 7 May 1896, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. 4THURSDAY, MAY 7,189 G. \ THE GOVERNMENT POLICY.

IT is significant that not » single Opposition paper or speaker pioposes to repeal any of the Acta of the present Government. They, in fact, find no fault with the work done by tho present Government ; they only find fault with the way it has been done, la not this significant I Oonld anything tell more in favor of the Government '! Supposing you had carpenters working at your house, and other carpenters came that way and said: “ These men you have are not doing good work, dismiss them, and give us the job.” You would ask “ What is wrong \ ” and they would reply “ Oh ! everything.” Then you would ask : “ Will you take down what they have done, and build afresh ? ” and they would say “No, we will let everything stand, but wo wont use the same kind of timber, and will not waste so many nails.” What would you any ? You would say “You are humbugs. You can’t find fault with the work done ; you only talk of changing tho timber, and saving nails. My carpenters must be doing very well when you can’t find fault with the work done by them. Go your way. I am not going to dismiss men who have done such good work that you can’t find fault with it.” Now that is exactly the position of the Government and the Opposition. No one proposes to alter anything they havo done, but tho country is asked to dismiss them without cause. No fault is found with their legislation, and the only thing that is questioned is their administration. An effort is being made to throw dust in tho eyes of the people by making it appear that their administration is bad, but uo definite charges have been made against them. Perhaps tho most direct and definite are those formulated by Mr Maslin in his Geraldiuo speech, but after all they were not very serious. Tho charge which is most likely “ to tickle the oars of the groundlings” is the one in which he dilates on tho personal extravagance of Ministers. People can easily understand that point ; it is different from tho sinking fund complications, which are so intricate that they w T ould puzzle a Philadelphia lawyer. Mr Maslin says that in 18!M tho combined travelling expenses of the seven or eight Ministers was over £2OOO, and in 1805 it was over £3OOO. That can bo easily understood, and unless there is a word of explanation tho uninitiated and unthinking will bo led astray by it. We do not dispute Mr Maslin’s figures, but wo think that if his iuteutious towards the Ministry had boon h«uost and honorable ho would havo given the explanation when ho gave tho figures. The explanation is this; We havo now not an ornamental, but a working Ministry. They go about tho country, moot the ! people, and confer with them with the view of studying thoir exact wants and 1

requirements. It ia plain they cannot do this without spending money, and we think that the paltry sum mentioned by Mr Maslin ia well spent, in that way. Take, for instance, the visit of Mr Seddou to the Maori country. All previous Governments had their Native difficulties, {surveyors were stopped, volunteers had to be called out, and policemen had to be despatched to put down lawlessness. Mr Seddon went amongst the Natives, talked to them, laid down the law for them, gave them to understand what they were to expect, and what is the result ? Perfect peace, and apparent contentment. Were not the few pounds spent in that way well spent? Was it not better than to spend the money on police and volunteers to put down an incipient rebellion ? Here is a grand fact worth a thousand arguments. Then, again, take the Minister of Lands, and see what he is doing, See the energy with which he is endeavouring to settle the people on the land ; see how he is trying to encourage the farming industry; and are we to count every penny he spends in doing such excellent work ? Then, again, see Mr Ward’s visit to Loudon. He spent £SOO, but he saved the colony £7,660 a year. Again, let it be remembered that every previous Premier’s salary was £1750 a year, and that Mr Seddon gets only £IOOO a year now. So it will be seen that his salary has been reduced by £750, or nearly one half; every previous Minister got £1250, but the present Ministers got only £BOO a year. That makes a groat difference. The allowance of previous Ministers was £2 2a a day while travelling; the allowance of present Ministers is only £llos. Previous Ministers remained in Wellington and sent civil servants to report on the requirements of the people; the present Ministers go about and consult and take counsel with the people, and we firmly believe that the £2OOO or £3OOO a year thus expended is money well spent. It is absolutely certain that officials look upon things with an official eye. They cannot sympathise with the people the same as Ministers can, and far greater satisfaction must result from the people having an opportunity of making their complaints known to a Minister than to a coldblooded, unsympathetic official. It ia in thus going about the country consulting the people, taking counsel with them, and inquiring into their wants, that Ministers incurred these expenses, and if Mr Maslin explained this we should find no fault with him. But he did not. He put it before his constituents in a manner that was calculated to leave a bad impression. This is the truth-half-told style of argument with which the Opposition have been Lying to damage the Government; it is such tiddley-winking, paltry, fault-finding as this that is being brought against them. Nothing is said against the Acts of Parliament they have passed, for no one dare do it, but every attempt is made to throw dust in the people’s eyes in this way, and we must confess that no one has been more damaging than Mr Maslin. The question may be put to electors in this way : Will you have Ministers who go about the country, and see for themselves what is wanted; or will you have Ministers who will sit in Wellington, and depend on the reports of officials ? If you have Ministers who will go about and see for themselves they must incur expense, and it must be paid. Is this going about worth the paltry sum of £2OOO or £3OOO ? That is the whole thing put in a nutshell, and we venture to think that the people, when they consider how satisfactorily the work has been done, will agree that the expenses of the present Government is money'well-spent.