Hie llmititiE FRIDAY, JULY i, 1913. ' • REFORM UNDER FIRE. ,

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1793, 4 July 1913, Page 6

The Dominion FRIDAY, JULY 4, 1913. REFORM UNDER FIRE.

The most interesting features of the debate on the Addrcss-in-Re-ply in the House of Representatives yesterday were the speeches of the Hon. W. Fraser, Mr. G. W. Russell, and the Hon. J. Allen. Mr. Fraser confined his remarks almost' entirely to matters connected with his own Department, and effectively answered the criticism of Mr. Macdonald, as regards public works methods and expenditure. The Minister for Public Works, however, is so very apologetic when he delivers his gentle raps to the gentlemen on the Opposition benches; and so anxious to assure them of his belief in their good intentions, .that his kindliness is liable to be mistaken for weakness. It ccrtainly robs his utterances of some of their effectiveness. The debate livened up considerably when Mr. G. AV. Russell started what proved to bo one of his best fighting speeches.' He emphasised some points which required answering, and most of them were disposed of very decisively by the Minister for Finance, who-was not content with merely defending the Government against attack; but also made numerous damaging excursions into the enemy's country. Mn. Russell devoted a considerable amount of time to the much-dis-cusscd question regarding the terms on which recent loans have been raised, with the object of showing that Mr. Allen's mission to England was not as successful as the Government had claimed. This matter has been so often discussed that it is not necessary now to go into the details of the controversy; but we may say that the Finance Minister not only

succeeded in showing that the i&ijOOOjOOO loan which he floated was raised ou more favourable terms than the two previous loans of the Wakd and Mackenzie Governments, but also that, as a result, a demand was created for New Zealand stock in consequence of which he was able to raise further money on even better terms. The disadvantages of short-dated loans were also clearly explained. In his criticism of the general policy of the Government, Me. Russell was rather weak, and he gave Mr. Allen several opportunities of turning the tables. With amusing inconsistency he charged the Ministry with having no policy, and also with having borrowed it from the Mackenzie Government, with the very important exceptions of the freehold, the reform of the Legislative Council, and tho Civil Service Commission. He went on to accuse Ministers of having broken their pledges, because they have not yet carried all their proposals—that is, in one session. This was a father foolish line of criticism to pursue, for of course it is quite obvious that no Government could hope to carry out in one session, or even in one Parliament, tho whole of a long list of policy measures such as the Reform party entered office pledged to carry. On the other hand, the Government can point to quite a formidable list of important measures which it placed on the Statute Book last year, and its programme for the current session is equally impressive. In reply to the assertions which have been freely made by tho opponents of the Government, to the effect that a process of reaggregation of large estates is going on, Me. was very clear and emphatic. He challenged Me. Russell to' show that anything of this kind had resulted from the legislation or administration of the present Government. He declared that there was not one case for which they could be held in any way responsible, and the challenge was received with a silence which told its own tale. What at first sight appeared to be the most effective portion of Me. Russell's speech was that referring to the question of economy in administration. His assertion that expenditure had- increased since the present. Government took office certainly called for an answer. Mk. Russell is not alone in wanting enlightenment on that point. The answer given by Mr. Allen .'.ast evening was rather disconcerting to the Opposition. It was to the effect that the burden of responsibilities and commitments which had been handed down from the "Liberal" Administration had first to be got rid of before a decrease in expenditure could be expccted. The railways were responsible for tho bulk of the increase, the cause being the additions made to tho salaries of tho employees, and in another Department the increase was largely due t'o the provision of better telophone facilities for the country districts. Taken as a whole, the debate on the Ad-dress-in-Reply has so far been interesting. The main line of attack has been made plain, and certainly has not been very formidable. Tho Government docs not appear, to Eave given its critics very much to find fault with, and they are driven into exaggerating trifles, which is a bad policy, liable to react with harmful effects on those who practise it.