Wellington Independent THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3311, 5 October 1871, Page 2

Wellington Independent THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1871.

The present session of Parliament will be memorable as the session of palaver and clap-trap. The amount of utterly useless talk on the part of some of the new members is only equalled by the amount of misrepresentation which has characterised the speeches of some j of the old. We have frequently palled attention to the former; the latter now claims a few remarks. The first glaring misrepresentation that suggests itself is that which cropped up in every speech in the long and useless debate of Tuesday evening. It may be stated thus : "The Government have not brought down a policy for the House to discuss." " They have not acted fairly by the , House." This is the veriest clap-trap — the grossest misrepresentation. The statements of the Colonial Treasuror and the Minister of Works indicate the <

policy of the Government with a fullness and precision never aimed at bj any former Ministry. The financial statements of all former Colonial Treasurers, read in the light of the present, are but an abstract of income and expenditure, indicating no more deHnite policy than what is implied in the phrase "carrying on the business of thecouatry." Any change they indicate is but a matter of account. For aught that appears on the surface, they might as well have been framed by the Sub-Treasurer. Policy, they had none ; if by the term is meant schemes conceived by the Government necessary for the progress of the colony. They were never brought forward until bills largely affecting the revenue, and giving effect to what may euphuistically called " the policy of the Government," had been discussod piecemeal. Session after session, during the Stafford administration especially, did hon members cry out to the Government, "What is your policy? Give a plain story of what you have done and mean to do;" and the invariable answer of the Treasurer was, " Story ! God bless you, I have none to tell you." Eveu when the country was in what the Government admitted to be "a terrible crisis," they would not state even their native policy unless, indeed, we except the damning admission made by the Native Minister that it was " drifting, drifting." As was happily put in 1868, " We have war apparently imminent, and an increased expenditure certain, and yet no indication of retrenchment as a set off against that expenditure. Then, no allusion has been made to the probable withdrawal of the Imperial troops from the island ; that is an important matter on which we have had no exposition of opinion. In every part of the country there is a cry of what is to be done * Watchman, what |of the night?' And what is the answer? The answer is contained in this order paper ; Ferries and Bridges Bill, Public Offences Bill, Audit Act Amendment Act." In one sense indeed we admit they had a policy. " Their policy". as Mr Tancred well put it, " was to wait and see what the country thinks, and then to act upon the opinion of the country." Mr Rolleston, now in the opposition which we lately congratulated the colony on being at last organised, supported Mr Fox that year in his motion requiring the Government to state their policy, and, with a directness and force not usually characteristic of his speeches, he said, " J shall support the resolution of the honorable 'member for Rangitikei, because I believe if it has no other effect, it will have the effect of enabling the House to ascertain whether the Government have any policy or not. At present we do not know whether there is any policy in respect to the Government of either Europeans or natives." Mr Collins, too, was no less outspoken. " He wished to hear a straightforward and distinct statement of the Government policy." The very boys in the streets of Wellington ran after members and shouted " What is your policy ?'' Contrast this with the policy indicated in the financial statement, and in the statement of the Minister of Works. These two statements contain, we ap- j prehend, all the essential principles of the Government policy. On them, every opportunity of discussion has been given, and yet, on some miserable pretext or other, the Opposition have shirked debate. Reference was made on Tuesday evening to the Brogden contract, and it was spoken of as if it had not been lying on the table for five weeks, and as if the Minister of Works had not stated that the Government were prepared to recommend contract No. 2. Mr Gillies, this session, as warmly opposes as he last session enthusiastically advocated the San Francisco service, but surely he cannot pretend that any information has been withheld with regard to it which precludes a discussion on the Government policy. It is altogether unworthy of any man of sense, with the extraordinary amount of information put before him by the Government in. Ministerial statements, reports, and returns, to say that there is anything wanting to enable hon. members to form an opinion, either on the policy of the Government or the success of their administration. Had M.r Stafford, who now takes up this cry, brought down as full information as now lies on the table of the House, the motion made by Mr Fox which ousted him from office would never have been tabled. The papers now before members give a complete exposition, not only of the policy of this session, but a full account of the action of the Government in carrying into effect the policy of last session. Members can now judge whether that policy was illusory and impracticable, and whether it has been faithfully carried out. The objections then raised to it can now be estimated at their proper value. The expectations then raised by it can also be as accurately determined. It is evident, however, that all that the House can now discussinavoteof want ofconfidence motion is how it has been carried into effect. Because on the San Francisco service, for instance, Mr Creighton is now willing that New Zealand " should be conteut to play second fiddle in a mail service between this country, Honolulu, and San Francisco," against which he so earnestly protested last session, he surely cannot complain if the policy he then advocated and voted for has been carried out in its integrity. He may change, but surely he cannot blame the Treasurer for not changing with him. With respect to the administration of the policy almost unanimously adopted by the Assembly last year, the Government have surely given the amplest information. The papers as to the raising of the loan, the purchase of land from the natives, the construction of roads in the North Island, the surveys of railways, the land transfer act, &c, &c, are all so many points of attaokof which the Opposition may properly avail themselves. Then the financial statement and the publio

i works statement give the Opposition every opportunity of testing the policy of the Government. Discussion on them ! Ministers have again and again courted, and until the great principles embodied [ in them are affirmed by the House, we ! see no necessity for the Government preparing measures to carry them into effect. We think tbe Government are to blame for not pressing on their consideration. On them ultimately rests the responsibility of the conduct of parliamentary j business,, arid it will be a mere waste of valuable time to go on preparing measures until it is known whether the purposes they are intended to serve are accepted or rejected. Mr Stafford complained last year " that the Government mixed up this great colonising scheme with the ordinary annual budget speech," — we cannot understand what he complains of this year. Lot us have no more of this petty noggling. " Let's to business." The House and the country are tired of this wretched waste of time. The " ways" of the Opposition are " dark," their " tricks " are "vain." Let the Government insist firmly on business going on.