8=;8 



REVIEW OF REVIEWS. 



Xocemher 1. 191S. 



Mr. Cook next day began to use the 

 closure. Sitting until 4 o'clock on Fri- 

 day morning the Government forced 

 through the Loan Bill. In the same way 

 progress was made with the Voting by 

 Post Restoration Bill, and the Abolition 

 of Preference Bill when the House met 

 again on Friday. Wild scenes accom- 

 panied the whole of the proceedings. 

 Mr. Cook caught the Opposition with 

 several of its men away, so that the 

 closure could always be carried. \\ hen 

 they are back in full strength this can 

 no longer be done. Signs are not want- 

 ing which show that Mr. Fisher is find- 

 ing more difficulty in holding his fol- 

 lowers together than is Mr. Cook. The 

 irony of the situation is in the use of 

 the closure by Mr. Cook, and the re- 

 sentment thereat on the part of Labour 

 members. Mr. Cook was the chief 

 opponent of the measure and of the 

 standing orders when they were in- 

 troduced by the Deakin Government. 

 It was only after a record sitting of 

 four days and nights that the stand- 

 ing orders on which the present Govern- 

 ment is relying were forced through, 

 with the help of the Labour members, 

 against the strenuous objection of Mr. 

 Cook ^nd nis party. 



Double Dissolution? 



The Government is obviously try- 

 ing to force a double dissolution, and 

 there is a possibility of one being 

 granted next March. Even if this plan 

 succeeds, the chance of carrying the 

 Senate is very remote. L'ndoubtedly the 

 Budget will tell against the Govern- 

 ment with many unthinking electors, 

 and, unfortunatelv, it is the wobblv man 

 who gives one side or the other the 

 majority. The Liberals went to the 

 country accusing the Labour Govern- 

 ment of extravagance, and promising 

 economy and reform. As we pointed 

 out in an article at the time, this charge 

 was not justified, nor was any consider- 

 able economy possible, and events have 



proved us right. The present Budget is a 

 legacy from Mr. Fisher, but it is every- 

 where spoken of as Sir John Forrest's. It 

 not only takes the whole estimated reve- 

 nue, but it also mops up the entire surplus 

 the Labour Government had accumu- 

 lated during the last three years. Is this 

 economy? says th^ " -: in the street. If 

 it is, I had better j, k to the extrava- 



gant Labour Government. However it 

 may be explained >\\;i\, the Budget i? 

 bound to have ect against the 



Liberal Party in any election during the 

 next few months 



The Griffiths-Wads Controversy. 



Last month I c< : on the 



«, ^es which Mr. Wade had made 



against Mr. Griffiths, Minister of Puol; 

 Works in New South Wales. Mr. Wade 

 refused to produce any evidence in proof 

 of his assertions because the Roval 

 Commission whir^^ '^ >d been appointed 

 to enquire into ..-: ..latter had beer, 

 limited t*-' the investigation of five only 

 : ■ .; _ rs he made. The five in 



question referred to rases where the 

 Minister had authorised a large expend 1 

 ture of public money, the sixth wa? a 

 suggest • ' Mr. Griffiths owned an 

 interest .1 c-. w. ..k of land at Medlow. 

 held in another person's name. As this 

 did not involve public money in an\- 

 way, the Government did not cons: . 

 that it she included in the scope 



of the Ro\ai ' ssion's enquirv 



Nothing further lia- oeen done in the 

 ir *^"°- though the charges Mr. Wade 

 h .:: :....de against a responsible Minister 

 would, if substantiated, drive him from 

 public life. Either Mr. Wade ought • 

 endeavour to prove them, or he ought • 

 withdraw the \'hilst perhaps the 



Government might have offered wider 

 facilities, the onus of proving his 

 charges lies, after all, with Mr. W--'- 



The New Zealand Strike. 



The strike ol waterside workers in 

 Wellinp* ^ i-^omfortable re 



