LONDON BOUND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 23, 28 January 1937, Page 14

LONDON BOUND.

FEDERAL MINISTERS.

EXPENSIVE DELEGATION.

THE CORONATION VISIT,

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

SYDNEY, January 21

It has l>een officially announced that the Ministerial delegation to the Coronation will consist of only three members —the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), the Minister of Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill) and the Federal Treasurer (Mr. Casey 1. Tt had been expected that Dr. Page might form one of the party, in view of tlie importance of the British market to our primary producers, bnt Mr. Lyons and Dr. Page agree that enough was done in the way of commercial negotiation by Dr. Page when he was at Home last year. The Country party is eaid to be indignant at Dr. Page's omission, and has urged that Mr. Thorby (assistantMinister of Commerce) ehould take his place. It has also been suggested that the Attorney-General might be included in the li<«t. in case constitutional questions should crop up at Home during the visit. But Mr Menzies 'has been abroad twice during the past three years, and i his position here is by no means a sinejeure The determining factor in this case was the natural deeire of the Prime Minister to cut down expenses, for there has been a great outcry against these "overseas jaunts" during the past year. Although it is possible to make out a strong ease for many of these Ministerial trips, it would certainly seem judicious in the present instance to practise economy so far as is consistent with the importance of the occasion and the personal and official dignity of our representatives. Labour Condemns Extravagance. When this matter of the Coronation trip came before Parliament, and a vote of £10,000 was appropriated for the expenses of the Parliamentary delegation, Sir. Ciirtin, as Leader of the Opposition, condemned the project as needlessly extravagant. He conceded that Mr. Lyons ought to be in London at the Coronation, but he refused to admit the necessity for a large party of members—■ at least seven, in addition to the Ministers chosen- —and he dwelt at length on the many trips enjoyed by Ministers previously, and the heavy outlay this imposed upon the Commonwealth.

Mr. Curtain had prepared an elaborate schedule of the journeying* of "every Minister who has been abroad since Mr. Lyons came into power," and the Opposition, at all evente, seemed to get a good deal of amusement out of it. According to Mr. Curtin, during the ! five years covered by this document 12 Ministers have had 18 trips outside Australia During that period .they have visited 27 countries, they have spent collectively five years awav from Australia, and the total expenses of these tours has amounted to just about £50,000. The inference that the Lyons Government has not been careful to restrict outlay on such excursions seems obvious! enough, but Mr. Morley (assistant-! Minister of Commerce) made an apt I and epirited reply, pointing out that I when the last Labour Government was' in power it had six Ministers in London! within nine months. He also argued ; with some success that Minister* in their. recent trips to England have been occu- [ pied chiefly with the task of protecting , Australia's overseas trade. which is worth at least £100,000.000 a year. I Outrunning Estimates. I It is true that the importance of the! duties discharged by our Ministers when at Home cannot fairly be estimated on! a pecuniary basis, but it is also true j that the expenses incurred in the past [ and to be incurred in the near future in! this way are inordinately heavy, and) that they have an elusive'habit of out-1 running even the most generous calcu-1 lations. Thus "Truth," which hae always opposed such expenditure vehemently, confesses itself unable to discover how the coming "jaunt" of Ministers and Parliamentary delegates to the Coronation can cost less than £100,000, and even this does not take into account the cost of the military delegation, which will come to at least £20,000 more. It is thus evident that Mr. Curtin had some reasonable excuse for his proteet, though even he would hardly have been prepared to go so far as to vote against the delegation. But he was on even firmer ground when he insisted that the Prime Minister and his colleagues ought not to leave Australia without consulting Parliament and receiving some sort of instructions from it regarding the line of policy that they are to follow in London. In reply, Mr. lyyons reminded Mr. Curtin that "when Mr. Scullin and two delegates represented Australia at the last Imperial , Conference there was no consultation of Parliament." That is true, but it does not affect the principle for which Mr. Curtin rightly contended. Moreover, Mr. Curtin is able to quote a definite promise given by Mr Lyons, that Parliament would resume in March! whereas, the present intention is that Mr Lyons will leave for England on March 30, and Parliament will not reassemble till the second or third week of April. - Issues For Discussion. Of cotirse, it is easy to say that a great many unforseen things have happened since Mr. Lyons gave this assurance, and that it is quite impossible now to call Parliament together before the end of March, but the fact remains that the- matters to be dealt with in London are eo vitally important that it does not seem wise to • leave them entirely to the discretion of Ministers without any sort of instruction from our Parliamentary representatives. The topics to bq discussed with the Imperial authorities in London include Imperial defence, the problems of the Pacific, the Ottawa agreement, the claim* of Germany to mandated concessions and immigration. A glance at this list suggest* that Mr. Curtin was thoroughly justified in his protest againet the departure of Ministers before Parliament has had a chance of discussing these matters and indicating its intention about them, and it seems unfortunate that Mr. Lyons has not been able in this respect to fall in with the wishes of the Opposition.