Comment From The Capital CHANGES IN CABINET WILL FOLLOW GENERAL ELECTION

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31150, 29 August 1966, Page 10

Comment From The Capital CHANGES IN CABINET WILL FOLLOW GENERAL ELECTION

(From Our Own Reporter!

WELLINGTON, August 28—In less than three months, one or other of the major political parties will face the task of carrying on the Government of New Zealand for the next three years. No matter which party is successful, a major realignment of portfolios will follow.

The retirement of three Ministers (Messrs J. K. McAlpine. R. G. Gerard and D. J. Eyre) means that, whatever else happens, there will lie new faces in the National Party Cabinet. Also it has been predicted that the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) would choose to pass the External Affairs portfolio to someone else.

A logical regrouping would be to bring the two Parliamentary Under • Secretaries (Messrs R. D. Muldoon and L. R. Adams-Schneider) to full Cabinet rank.

If Mr Holyoake decided to delegate External Affairs, the most likely choice would be Mr J. R. Hanan, who already has the Island Territories portfolio, but who is at present burdened with Justice and the Attorney-Generalship. Mr Adams-Schneider has !had a valuable apprenticeship in Industries and Commerce, land has also assisted Mr Shel[ton in the Customs portfolio. Iso he could well relieve Mr Marshall in these areas, leaving Mr Marshall reasonably free to resume the AttorneyGeneralship and Justice port 2 folios, whi-h he held from 1954 to 1957.

The Defence portfolio could be allocated to Mr D. MacIntyre (Hastings) or Mr D. S. Thomson (Stratford), both of whom are members of the Defence Committee and experienced citizen soldiers. It would seem likely that Mr Gerard’s portfolios of Lands and Forests could also go to a new Minister, and the name of Mr J. B. Gordon has been mentioned most often for this post. These allocations would leave the Transport, Railways and Civil Aviation portfolios to be filled. There could be a special post (in Decimal Currency year) for Mr Muldoon. If not, he should fit well into the vacancies left by Mr McAlpine leaving the way open for the selection of two more Ministers-in-training.

The present Chairman of Committees (Mr R. Jack) would be Speaker, and Mr J. H. George, Chairman of Committees.

Labour Aims There is little doubt that if Labour were successful, some problems hitherto unresolved in that party would be disposed of. One reliable source for instance, suggests that in a Cabinet required to plan for the future there would be little room for members now over 70 years of age. It would be unlikely, also, that Mr Nordmeyer would be called to be Minister of Finance or that Mr R. M. Macfarlane would be renominated as Speaker. For the latter important post, another Christchurch member, Mr J. Mathison (Avon) has been mentioned more than once. It must not be lost sight of, however, that the Labour Party’s practice is for Caucus to nominate Ministers or rather to put forward the

names of members, to whom the Prime Minister would then allocate portfolios. Following Labour Party ‘practice. Mr Kirk would projbably retain Maori Affairs and External Affairs. His deputy. (Mr H. Watt,’would take up I his 1957-60 tasks of Works land Electricity. 1 It has been the Labour Party’s practice for a Maori ‘member, to manage the Lands and Forests portfolios and to be Associate to the Prime (Minister in Maori Affairs. Sir Eruera Tirikatene would be ‘first considered for this task, 'but his accession to it might I depend upon Mr Kirk's interpretation of age limitations. (Otherwise, Mr Rata would be 1 the probable choice. | Dr. A. M. Finlay is the i logical choice as AttorneyGeneral and Minister of Finance, and the experienced Mr Fox could hardly be passed over as Minister of Labour, Mines and Immigration. The health of Mr M. Moohan would be a major factor in determining whether he would return to his old portfolios of Postmaster-General and Minister of Railways. If not, these portfolios could be handled by the present Senior Wh’p, Mr H. L. J. May. Perhaps the key position remaining would be that of Minister of Finance. Judged by his qualifications and the 1 mount of work he has done on financial subjects this session. Mr M A. Connelly would be the likely choice for this, with Mr R. J. Tizard a possibility. The filling of these posts would leave a number of promising members available for those remaining, without even considering the eight or nine new Labour faces whose presence would make the whole exercise possible. Among them could be Messrs A. S. Faulkner, C. J. Moyle, W. A. Fraser, N. V. Douglas, W. W. Freer, R. J. Tizard, W E. Rowling, Sir! Basil Arthur, and Mrs E. E. j McMillan.

One source places Mrs McMillan before Miss M. B. Howard, as lady Cabinet member, principally because of age, and because of the amount of interest shown by Mrs McMillan in matters of health and education—but this again would be a matter of Caucus or Mr Kirk’s decision. The Questioners

The news that Mrs E. E. McMillan (Opp., Dunedin North) has asked the greatest number of oral questions in Parliament this session may not mean much to the casual reader—but it is an indication that some members are more dedicated than others. It also shows the potentialities of the members concerned. Mrs McMillan, for instance, has concentrated most of her queries on local matter- connected with education and health.

The second-in-line, Mr M. A. Connelly (Opp., Riccarton), has directed almost all of his 36 questions at the Minister of Finance (Mr Lake). They have been on general financial topics, and indicate the amount of research work Mr Connelly has put into this subject

Third equal (with Mr M. V. Donald, Govt., Wairarapa) in the number of questions asked is Mr S. A. Whitehead (Opp., Nelson). Mr Whitehead has concentrated on the problems of his own area, which link in with transport, the timber

(industry, and industrial development. ' The next South Islanders are Mr J. S. Gordon (Govt.. Clutha) with 23 questions, most of them on farming themes, and Mr H. B. Walker (Govt., St. Albans), whose 21 (questions have been on local iand economic issues closely ( identified with the area he i represents. I The "top twenty” of oral (questioners so far are: Mrs (McMillan, 48: Mr Connelly. 36 [Messrs Donald and Whitehead. 24 each: Mr Gordon. 23; Dr jA. M. Finlay (Opp., Waijtakere), 22; Mr Walker. 21. Mrs R. M. Stevenson (Govt.. Taupo) and Mr W. W. Freer (Opp., Mount Albert). 20 each: Mr D. Maclntyre (Govt . Hastings), 19; Mr L. F. Sloane (Govt., Hobson) and Mrs E. Tombleson (Govt., Gisborne), 18; Messrs B P. McDonnell (Opp., Dunedin Central), A D. Dick (Govt., Waitaki). and N. V. Douglas (Opp., Auckland Central), 17 each: Mr H. E. L. Pickering (Govt., Rang! ora), 16; Messrs W. E. Rowling (Opp., Buller) and N. J. King (Opp, Waitemaia) and Sir Basil Arthur (Opp., T 'naru), 15 each: Mr A. ,1. Faulkner (Opp., Roskill), 14. i The asking of written questions has not proved so popular, mainly because the written answer is published in the Order Paper, and is not subject to debate in the House. Fewer than 50 written questions have been asked so far this session, and only about 18 members have participated. Of these. Sir Basil Arthur and Messrs Rowling, Bailey and McDonnell lead with four each asked and answered. Dr. Finlay and Mr P. Blanchfield (Opip., Westland) have asked three each, and Mr Connelly two. It is a field which has been left entirely to Opposition members. Trade Practices Legislation amending the Wages Protection and Contractors Liens Act will not be ready for introduction this session. So many complicated factors have arisen during the last few months that it will probably go to an inter-de-partmental committee for closer examination.

One problem to which special attention has been drawn concerns the rights of those supplying materials to contractors. Under the present procedure the period allowed for the securing of a lien for the non-payment of a debt is 31 days, but the contractor is allowed 30 days in which to pay.

One group of contractors’ suppliers is known to have asked for the retention period to be extended to 60 days. The Justice Department is believed to be sympathetic to this view, but it is not likely to appeal to all parties. Some commercial groups are believed to be restive at the decision to defer the amendments, on the grounds that an expert committee considered the whole problem last year, and brought down a fujl report last January, after hearing interested parties.

The prospect of having to give evidence again before another body, possibly a Select Committee, does not appeal to business organisations which have already stated their case.