CABINET MAKING.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 250, 19 October 1920, Page 7

CABINET MAKING.

THE ELECTIVE EXECUTIVE.

MR. STATIIAM'S BILL.

A SHORT SHRIFT. (Br Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON", Monday. J Very extensive delving into "Hansard" !had been undertaken by Mr. Statham (Dunedin Central) to reinforce hie advocacy of the Elective Executive in the House .of Representatives. He devoted almost the whole of hie speech in moving the second reading of his bill on this subject 'to-night to reading old speeches in its favour, the most effective being that of the present Prime Minister. It was demonstrated that about a dozen Government supporters had voted for the Elective Executive principle some I time during their career, though it appeared most of them had changed their minds.

"How did you vote in 1912?" interjected Mr. Masecy, and there was loud I laughter when Mr. Statham confessed, that he was one of the "Noes." He explained that this was early in his political careeT, that lie later realised the evils of the domination of Party, and he was in a much happier position now as an Independent. "We have a little, caucus now and then," he added. i "Oh!" interjected Government mem- ■ bera. "A party?" J Mr. Statham declined. to admit the existence of a party, because, he said, everyone voted as they pleased.

The Prime Minister followed the mover, remarking that the House had heard a most eloquent speech. Mr. Isitt: You have had a most i logical speech. ! Mr. Maesey (scornfully): Logical? The greater part of his speech was mine. (Loud laughter.) The premier went on ■to declare that he had never abused the party syetem. Certainly he had voted for the principle of the bill yeurs ago, mainly out of friendship for Sir William Steward, its advocate, but an time went on ho saw that the system would be no improvement on the present method, because it would involve the party system in aggTa-vated degree. What sort of Elective Executive would be evolved from the present House? He would put himself on the list, then would come Mr. Wilford, Mr. Holland (Laughter.) Mr. Holland: You would never catch Jme in that. The Premier: I have seen men as extreme as Mr. Holland come into uee, and become quite useful members. (Laughter.) Mr. Holland: I am useful without changing from the extreme. Mr. Maeeey: There's room for every sinner that repenteth. (Laughter.) 1 am not quite sure he would not accept. The Premier wont on to complete his Elective Cabinet, enumerating, amid more laughter Mr. Xosworthy, Dr. Newman, Mr. Isitt, Mr. Lysnar, Mr. MβCombs and Mr. McLeod, describing it as a sort of Scotch mixture. They would Hots' agree on any important question. If anyone had been inconsistent it was the author of the bill, who ought to be sitting on the Government side of the House. It was because of h« incoiuiUtency that he was on the other side. ■ Mr. Massey added that he was sorry for Mr. hitatham. He had helped him when he came into Parliament, and even last election. Mr. Statham: Xot that I'm aware of. Mr. Harris revived the question of the Progressive Reformers, and the history of the new Liberal party, which broke away from Mr. Seddon in 1005. Mr. Massey: They came to grief. Mr. Harris: They have not come to grief this time. Mr. Massey: Where are they? Mr. Harris: I'll tell you. Three are in your Ministry. (Laughter.) There were 13 members of the Progressive party. One did not see'e re-election, and the rest were again elected. •

Mr. Masscy: 1 helped every one, and they would not have got in without mc. Mr. Harris contended that if the Government party had utilised the Elective Executive system ft would have resulted in a somewhat different (yibinet. Mr. Potter: What portfolio would you have held? (Laughter.) Mr. Harris: I am trying not to be personal.

! The debate was continued by yarious members, one of the beet speeches being that delivered by Mr. D. Jonee, the member for Kaiapoi, who, with a good deal of logical argument, condemned the bill. Mesers. H. E. Holland (Buller), A. \lcNicol (Pahiatua), and the Hon. J. A. Hanan contributed to the discussion.

The second reading was lost on a divi sion by 34 votes to IC.