MINISTER IN THE UPPER HOUSE

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24369, 22 September 1944, Page 4

MINISTER IN THE UPPER HOUSE

NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT

OPPOSITION CHALLENGES ARRANGEMENT

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) * WELLINGTON, September 21. The Opposition challenged the arrangement by which the Hon. A. McLagan, a member of the Legislative Council, was Minister of National Service when the National Service vote was before the House of Representatives to-day. An amendment to reduce the vote by £5 was moved by Mr R. G. Gerard (Opposition, Mid-Canter-bury), and was debated for some time, but the Opposition did not take it to the stage of calling for a division. The main ground of Opposition criticism was that a Minister with such wide powers over all persons should be a member of the House of Representatives, so that elected representatives could question him in person. The Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser) made a warm defence of Mr McLagan’s administration, which, he said, was able and brilliant, and compared favourably with that of any country. Speaking to the vote of £354,386 for the National Service Department, Mr Gerard said the department was an important one in that it had almost complete power to interfere with the lives of all the people of the country. It was a wrong thing to have the Minister of such a department in another place, where he could not be called to account. He did not criticise the Minister personally. It was .the principle that he considered wrong, and he had been supported in that in the past by a large number of members of the Government. If Mr McLagan was to continue in that office he should go to the country. He had the opportunity ih the Awarua byelection to ask the electors to confirm him in his office. “Able Minister”

Mr Fraser said Mr McLagan was a very able Minister. Mr Gerard: I did not question his ability. . Mr Fraser: The Opposition admits his ability. ’. 1 ~ . Mr Gerard: I am not questioning it; but that does not mean that I admit it. Mr Fraser said Mr McLagan was appointed as part of the war administration, and had adhered to his position when members of the Opposition appointed at the same time did not. Mr G. H. Mackley (Opposition, Masterton): And answered to the people for it. Mr Fraser: Yes. And as the Government was returned, I am quite satisfied. . Mr W. S. Goosman (Opposition, Waikato); But how? Mr Fraser said if there was any charge against the administration of the department it should be addressed to him, as he was responsible for Mr McLagan continuing in office. •- It had been suggested that he should have asked Mr McLagkn to go to the country—to go through an unnecessary pantomime. Mr Gerard: Do you call going to the country an unnecessary pantomime? Mr Fraser: Yes, in this case. To raise the question whether Mr McLagan represented an electorate was irrelevant. Mr Fraser said he had opposed the Hon. R. Masters holding the portfolio of education in the Upper House, but he had never objected to Sir Francis Bell being AttorneyGeneral and Minister of Justice, and no one with a proper sense of proportion would have done so. Mr McLagan had been appointed during war time, when circumstances were exceptional, and he had done a very good job. Mr A. J. Murdoch (Opposition, Marsden) said all members of the Opposition who were in the war administration were representatives of the people Mr Fraser: The House agreed to this Minister’s appointment. Mr Murdoch asked if the House had ever voted on that, and said he knew of no vote. He asked when there was going to be an overhaul of the department. and said there were many men returning from the forces who were being directed unnecessarily, and sometimes incorrectly. He quoted the case of a printer who had closed his printing works to serve in the forces, and who had been directed to a cement works upon discharge. Amendment Moved Mr Gerard then moved that the total vote be reduced by £5 as an indication that the House had no confidence in an arrangement which permitted the Minister in charge of the National Service Department to be a member of another place. Mr W. A. Sheat (Opposition, Patea) pointed out that the Minister had been appointed during the life of the last Parliament, and had had the opportunity to go to the country during the General Election. A Minister with such far reaching powers should sit in the House, where he would be answerable to Parliament.

Mr Murdoch said if Mr McLagan wanted the confidence of the whole House he should contest a seat, and enter the House.

Mr Fraser said no member of the Government could claim the confidence of the Opposition, so the member was talking impossibilities. The appointment of Mr McLagan was according to a well-established Parliamentary custom, both in Britain and New Zealand.

Mr Fraser, answering a point raised during the discussion, said the question of a one chamber legislature was a question which could be considered in the light of changing constitutional There was a case for a onechamber legislature, such as was functioning satisfactorily in Queensland, and that could be discussed at a later date if desired.

Mr F. W. Doidge (Opposition, Tauranga): I think you would find it a popular move in this country. Mr Fraser said he himself approached the matter with a very open mind. He thought members of the House, who were elected representatives of the people, were the best judges of whether there was need for a constitutional change.

As far as Mr McLagan was concerned, none could have done better than he the particular job which he had done. He was asked to take office for the duration of the war, and the Government was not going to say to him at the present stage: "Thank you, now get out.” An Opposition voice: We say come in, not get out. Mr T. L. -Macdonald (Opposition, Mataura) drew attention to a booklet issued by the department, and said it seemed a late stage for its issue. Was that an indication that the Government thought manpower direction was here to stay? Mr Fraser replied that the booklet might have been helpful earlier, but it was helpful now. Members could be satisfied that its issue was not a preliminary to making direction permanent. He looked forward to the time when a change in the war situation would make it unnecessary. Mr Gerard’s amendment was rejected on the voices, and the vote was carried.