MINISTER FOR DEFENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 May 1916, Page 7

MINISTER FOR DEFENCE.

•UNFAIRLY CRITICISED. (From Our Own Correspondent). Wellington, May 12. The speeches that have been made in the course of the Address-in-Reply debate up to the present time show plainly that the feeling in the House of Representatives against the Minister for Defence has grown more keen since the close of the last session. The Hon. J. Allen was not a popular Minister last year, when he was being held responsible for the troubles at Treatham camp and other defects in Defence administration. But lie did not have to face then the outspoken demands for his resignation that have been uttered by several mem-, bers during the last twenty-four hours. It is quite clear that the feeling of the House, rightly or wrongly, is against Mr. Alien.

Just how far the feeling is based upon a full understanding of Defence administration is another matter. Mr. Allen is blamed for his refusal to establish local .camps. His staff officers, thp men responsible for the high standard of training reached by the New Zealand troops, have stated most definitely that local camps would be prejudicial to training. Would a Defence Minister, in time of war, be justified in setting the wishes of the districts against the recommendations of his military advisers? The point is worth consideration. Then members say that the Minister's "attitude" and "manner" have discouraged recruiting. Is that really the case? How many of the enlisted men have ever spoken to Mr. Allen, and how many men consider their duty to the country in the light of one public man's "attitude" and ''manner," anyway? Then Mr. Allen is blamed for the inadequacy of the pensions and the delays, real or alleged, of the Pensions Board. But the. iPensions Act is the joint' product of Cabinet and a Parliamentary committee, and Mr. Allen has nothing whatever "to do with the Pensions Board, which is under the direction of the Hon. A .M. Myers.