THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 9, 1896. THE GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2969, 9 May 1896, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 9, 1896. THE GOVERNMENT POLICY.

We find that we have struck a gold-mine in Mr Masliu’s speech. It is a regular Coolgardie, because it is so full of pabulum for leading articles. The more wo dive into its dark recesses, the more striking it becomes. He charges the Ministry with having obstructed or opposed Liberal measures; but did the House sit idle because of this ? Did not members complain of having too much to do I And if not, did not the Government do right in putting down to the bottom of the Order Paper Bills which they knew would not pass so as to make room for Bills which would and did pass ? One of these is the Referendum Bill, introduced by Mr O’Regau. Now if Mr Masliu knows anything about politics ho ought to know that this is a measure involving a tremendous constitutional change, and that no Ministry in the world would allow that to pass in the hands of a private member. The late Mr Ballanco took the Female Franchise Bill out of the hands of Sir John Hall; Mr Seddon took the Licensing Bill out of the hands of Mr Mac Nab, and so on. There are measures, such as these, which no Government will permit a private member to deal with, but even if they did the Legislative Council would not pass them. We do not think the Legislative Council will pass the Roferoadutu Bill next session, even though backed by Government influence, for it cuts the feet from under themselves, and it certainly would not have had the slightest chance of passing last session. That being so, what was the use of wasting time over it '! Did Mr Seddon waste time over his Local Government Bill '! Did Mr Reeves waste time over his Undesirable Immigrants Bill '! No. They merely brought in the measures so as to give the public an idea of what they wore, and to ascertain whether they met with public approval. They introduced them, and allowed them to rest there, so that the country would have time to think over them, and Mr O’Regan’s Bill was only treated in the same way. How can it be wrong fur the Ministry to decline wasting time over Mr O’Regan’s Bill when they did the same to their own raea ures ! Sir John Hall was well pleased when the Ministry took up the Female Franchise Bill, as also was Sir Robert Stout when they took up the Family Homes Bill. It is reserved for Mr Masliu to denounce them for taking up Mr O’Rogan’s Bill. It is the uncauclid way in which Mr Masliu represents the Ministry with which wo find fault. Mr O’Rogan’s Bill will now bo taken up by the Government, but ton chances to one it will bo rejected by the Council. In that case the Government will go to the country on it, and if they are returned after next election the Council must pass it. The Council treated tho Labor and other Bills of tho Government in the

same way. They refused to pass them uutil they had been before the j country,but when theyfoundthe Government returned with a large majority they passed them without delay. The Council will not recognise, that a Bill has been before the country until it has been before the electors as a Government measure, and consequently if the Government had not taken up Mr O’JRegau’s Referendum Bill it could not pass if 20 private members had been returned on it. The Fair Rout Billisexactly in the same position. Mr McKenzie knew the Council would not pass it, aud thought it would be no use to spend time over it. Since then his hand has been greatly strengthened by influential deputations which waited on him in Dunedin and Invercargill. He will introduce it next session aud send it to the Council, and if rejected he will take it to the country, when, if he is returned, the Council must pass it. Mr Masliu says that Mr McKenzie is keeping it dan "ling before the electors for electioneering purposes. Is it not most extraordinary that Mr Maslin puts the worst possible construction on all the notions of Ministers? Mr O’Regan’s Bill had no chance of passing as it was Tko Government have taken it up now, aud if backed up by the country it will pass. It is the same with the Fair Rent Bill and the other measures referred to, but Mr Maslin attributes bad motives to Ministers in all their transactions. Ho represents them as designing, scheming hypocrites, who are resorting to all manner of. tricks and chicanery to keep their places. He gives them no credit for good intentions, but some people are so constituted that they must judge everyone else by their own bushel. Mr Maslin is probably judging Ministers bj what he would himself do if he were himself in their place. We do not think that to judge them by such a measure is the best way to form an estimate of their worth. In reply to a question Mr Maslin said he could discant for hours on the virtues of the Government, but he took care not to do so. If he were a friend of the Government he would have at any rate done justice to their virtues before discantiug on their faults. He might very well have allowed the Opposition to expatiate on their faults, especially on the eve of a general election, but this he has not done. He has said very little about their virtues and a great deal about their faults, but fortunately for the Government their faults are neither great nor many when honestly aud properly discussed.