N.S.W. CABINET.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 89, 15 April 1922, Page 5

N.S.W. CABINET.

SIR GEO. FULLER'S TEAM. ALLOCATION OF PORTFOLIOS. (By Cable. —Press Association.—Copyright) SYDNEY, April 14. The new State Ministry has been sworn in. Tie personnel is as follows: — Sir George, Fuller, Premier. Mr. C. W. Oake*. Chief Secretary and Minister of Health. Mr. A. A. C. Cocks, Treasurer. Mr. T. R. Bavin, Attorney-General. Mr. W. E. Wcarne, Minister of Lands and Forests. Sir Thomas Henley, Minister of Works, Railways and Housing. Mr. A. Bruntnell, Minister of Education and Industry. Mr. J. C. L. Fitzp.itrick. Minister of Mines and Government. Mr. R. T. Ball, Minister of Agriculture. Mr. T. L. Ley, Minister of justice. Mr. W. Farrar, M.LC, Minister of Labour. Mr. F. A. Chaffey. Assistant-Minister of Lands and Agricul'ure. Sir Joseph Carruthers, Vice-President of the Executive Council. The Progressives strongly favoured reduction in the number of portfolios and the retention of the full number by Sir George Fuller is considered likely to give offence to the Progressives. There is some surprise at the appointment of Mr. Farrar. who formerly was a prominent Labourite, and joined tbe Nationalists after the Labour split ou the conscription issue. Sir Thomas Henley, the new Minister of Works, who will control all State

industries, expresses uncompromising hostility to State trading activities, stating that he intends to adopt a drastic policy of non-interference witb private enterprise. Mr. Bruxner (Leader of the Progressives) said the number of new Ministers was a shock to the people. He was surprised and disappointed that no attempt had been made to reduce the number of portfolios. It seemed as if the offices had been created for the men instead of ■vice versa. The country interests had heen completely subordinated, notwithstanding the coalition; in fact, only three country representatives, of whom two are city solicitors, were included in the Ministry. Mr. Bruxner subsequently paid a courtesy call on Mr. J. Dooley, the exPremier, at the private hospital. The \isit possesses no political significance. Sir Geo. Fuller, replying to Mr. LruxBer's criticisms, says be accepts them as suggesting whole-hearted co-operation •with the Government in carrying out a policy of economy and sound vigorous development. The only apparent difference is the metbod by which the common aim may be reached. He defends the number of Cabinet appointments, saying tbat most of the at present need very close attention and reorganisation. To reduce the number of portfolios would be to multiply the duties of Ministers, and would make for bad, inefficient . pianagement.— (A. and N.Z. Cable.) A CAPABLE TEAM. CUTTING DOWN THE B_lS. ' (Received 11 a.m.) SYDNEY, this day. The "Daily Telegraph" comments that the new Ministry is not rich in surprises, except for the economy party, which might fairly have considered thirteen portfolios an over-generous number to baudle the business of the State. However, on the whole, the portfolios have been allotted with some reference to appropriateness. It looks like a sat-

— _i r isfactory capable team, from whom much may be confidently expected in the way of calling a halt to the reckless squandering of public money, and applying the physician's touch to our sick industries. The "Morning Herald" says: The Cabinet is a particularly strong one.; whilst it comprises a number of seasoned politicians, it also contains a lot of new young promising men. Mr. Dooley has issued a statement regarding the result of the elections. He' claims for the Labour party generally a sincere desire to promote the best "interests of the State. He says: "There is no doubt that the few men In the ranks of Labour who put their selfish interests and ambitions first, played a prominent part in causing our defeat at the noils, but notwithstanding ♦his Labour could have milled through if the issue had been decided upon politics and not sectarianism. Never in the Thistorv of State elections did sectarianism play such a part as in the recent poll. Mr. Dooley claims that there was no administrative act of the Labour Government but what was clean, straightforward, and in the best interests of the State, also that he left the financial position better than he found it.—(A. and N.Z. Cable.)