The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1942. The Political Situation

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23748, 21 September 1942, Page 4

The Press MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1942. The Political Situation

The Prime Minister returned from the United States last week to face a domestic political situation which has deteriorated during his absence and partly because of his absence. The miners’ strike in the Waikato, the dispute between the Government and farmers’ organisations over the supply of farm labour, and the Government’s continued inability to make up its mind over economic stabilisation are some of the more obvious outward signs of that deterioration. They point, moreover, to one main cause: the dispersion of authority and responsibility involved in the present system of war administration. The South Island farmers’ organisation which recently asked the Government to designate one Minister whose statements on the farm labour situation could be accepted as authoritative made a devasftiting but fair judgment on the present state of administration in New Zealand. There are so many Ministers, and their powers are so imperfectly defined, that it has become impossible to accept the statement of any one Minister as a statement of policy. What is worse, it has become impossible to discover what body of men constitutes the Government of New Zealand. Is it the War Cabinet, or the War Administration, or the domestic Cabinet, or some combination of these three authorities? The experience of the last few weeks makes it impossible to give a definite answer and even suggests the disturbing conclusion that the term Government of New Zealand now denotes an abstraction rather than a reality. It is not even clear who was head of the Government while Mr Fraser was in America; for although the Hon. D. G. Sullivan took the title of ActingPrime Minister, 'the Hon. S. G. Holland became acting-chairman of the War Cabinet, a body which seems to exercise more of the important functions of government than either the War Administration or the domestic Cabinet. The one fixed point in this quagmire of uncertainty is that Mr Fraser is Prime Minister and, as Prime Minister, has sufficient power to enable him to coordinate the work of the three Cabinets.

But besides being Prime Minister, Mr Fraser has the portfolios of Finance and External Affairs, either of which is a full-time job. He has not the time, let alone the capacity, to dominate men, which would enable him to discipline his illassorted team into some sort of efficiency. The outcome is that Mr Fraser is squandering his abilities in a vain attempt to do three men’s work and that his Government—if such an entity any longer exists—is incapable of coherent thought or resolute action. At present, national policy is rarely something which has been worked out by the Ministry after consideration of the relevant facts. It is usually the result of a conflict of interests on some issue, the Ministry, m'erely acquiescing in the outcome. This point is well illustrated by the farm labour problem. At least half-a-dozen Ministers have at different times tried to solve the problem of reconciling the manpower demands of the Army and the farming industry, and at least half-a-dozen conflicting policy statements have’been made on the subject. But the conclusion to be drawn from recent developments is that the Army has won a battle which has been going on behind the scenes and that the Ministry has accepted the result. Though the Army’s policy may be a reasonable one, the revelation ot the Ministry’s weakness and confusion of mind must have bad consequences. Mr Sullivan complained recently that plans for economic stabilisation are meeting with a “ stiff resistance.” He ought to realise that this resistance is in part because the Ministry habitually shirks the responsibility of leadership and prefers to let the interests involved find their point of balance. Stabilisation will only be possible if the various economic interests—trade unions, farmers, manufacturers and so on—believe that the Ministry is strong enough to hold to its course however strongly the wind may blow from any quarter. Lacking this confidence, they will in self-defence feel obliged to think of themselves first and the State afterwards. In his broadcast address to the people of New Zealand last evening Mr Fraser emphasised that the issue of the war was still ” hanging in the balance ” and that the United Nations were called upon to make greater sacrifices and to organise more efficiently. New Zealand is capable of greater sacrifices and of much more efficient organisation. But 20 Cabinet Ministers who are ■ united in nothing so much as their determination to cling to office and who fall over one another’s heels every time they try to move are in no position to ask others to make sacrifices and to organise more efficiently. When the present scheme of war administration was agreed upon, both Mr Fraser and Mr Holland protested to their critics that they would not remain in office if public opinion turned against that scheme. Though it is difficult to gauge public opinion at a time when the press is censored and the most vigorous-minded section of the community is in the armed forces, recent signs suggest that a national poll on the issue of confidence or no-confidence in the war administration would result in an overwhelming negative vote. In any case, Mr Fraser and Mr Holland will be lacking a sense of responsibility if they cling to the present arrangement until popular clamour becomes too loud to be ignored, for in war time the public never has full and up-to-date information on political questions. If the arrangement is producing administrative confusion, which it is doing, their duty is to find a better and not wait till its failure becomes blatantly obvious.