THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, JULY 1, 1912. THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10677, 4 July 1912, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, JULY 1, 1912. THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

Tilie No-confidence debate in the House of Representatives has opened in a spirited manner. Mr W. F Massey, in the course cf the hour allotted him, made a telling indictment againist the Government. Unfortunately the time at his disposal did not permit him to traverse the whole field of politics as it appears to the advocate of reform. He had no difficulty, however, in showing how absurd it is to expect legislation of a progressive character from an administration composed of such irrccorroiJable units ay that which Mr Mackenzie has called together. The mover and seconder of the Address-in-Reply afforded Mr Massey just the openings for criticism that he desired, and he made the most of the opportunity of saddling the successive Liberal Government:} with the responsibility for the present social and industrial unrest, and for the failure to provide homes for th* l people upon the land. His clear exposition of the duties of the State in 'the matter of closer settlement will appeal to the bulk of the electors throughout the Dominion, and his withering criticism of those who have allowed a- lust for office to influence their conduct of public affair's will ihave a wholesome effect upon the public conscience. The Leader cf the Opposition is to be congratulated up on the dignified and patriotic character of his address, and the entire absence of anything approaching invective, innuendo, acerbity or egotism. That he should have been followed by the Hon. G. W. Russell, Minister of Internal Affairs, instead of by the Prime Minister, is a poor compliment to the leader cf the Government as a factor in public debate. Tho Hon. T. Mackenzie, by the nature of his inlten'jcctioiw, Was most uncomfortable under the scorching criticism to which he and his party were subjected, andycthci was apparently •unable, on tlie cipur of the moment, ■to offer a, rational ircply. The argument. 1 ? of tho Minister cf Internal Affairs were ingenious, if not convincing. His attempt to identify the present Reform Party with tho sins of

the Conservatives of years ago was not worthy of a Minister of the Grown, ' and his deliberate distortion of remarks attributed ,to Mr Massey in regard to old age pension® was characteristic of a man who ■:& in absolute political desperation. The Hon. G. W. liussell did not attempt a defence of the policy outlined in tlio Governor's Specdi. He had nothing to say concerning the important omissions from iCiftt policy. He coju-ented I witli a general refutation of the charges which hiatd been pLacetl ait the I doer cf the "Liberal" Party by Mr Massey. His references to the composition of the present Ministry, and to their 'views en the land question, were humorously apologetic, while his declaration that the Eoform victory at the recent polls was due to a campaign of sk'nideir was a gratuitous itir sust to the intelligence of the people. It may be that as the debate proceed.? some rational explanation may he offered of the paradoxical situation -n which Mr Mackenzie finds himself with his colleagues. The evidences at present all point to the conclusion that tlio 'heterogenous comihination which 'dojo duty as a Cabinet is quito impossible.