The Press THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1970. Need For Changes In The Cabinet—And House

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32392, 3 September 1970, Page 10

The Press THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1970. Need For Changes In The Cabinet—And House

Although the Prime Minister is counting on the Minister of Works (Mr Allen) to return to his office after recovering from his illness, the time has surely come for Sir Keith Holyoake to reconsider the allocation of work in his Cabinet The return to duty of Mr Allen will not relieve the undue burdens that fall on some other members of the Cabinet particularly on the shoulders of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Marshall), who is also Minister of Overseas Trade, Attorney-General, Minister of Labour, and Minister of Immigration. Thoughts of changes in the Cabinet are bound to arouse fresh speculation on the Prime Minister’s intentions about remaining in his own office for the full term of Parliament He is hardly likely to make drastic changes in the Cabinet if he has any thought of early retirement himself; they would best be left to his successor. In fact there is no reason to believe that Sir Keith Holyoake intends to hand over his leadership in the near future; even if he is not to be leader of the National Party after a General Election in 1972 he might well be expected to remain Prime Minister at least until the end of next year. Speculation about early Cabinet changes can therefore exclude a change in leadership. Indeed, one compelling reason suggests that Sir Keith Holyoake should retain office for some time if his natural successor, the deputy leader, Mr Marshall, is to follow him: during the currency of Britain’s negotiations to enter the European Common Market the overseas trade portfolio requires Mr Marshall’s continued and experienced attention.

Nevertheless, it seems highly desirable that Mr Marshall should be relieved of the Labour portfolio; if Mr Riddiford is not to assume full responsibility for Labour and Immigration then another Minister of Labour—perhaps Mr Gordon—must be found. Mr Gordon’s posts as Minister of Transport and Minister of Railways might be filled by any of several men in, or on the fringes of, the Cabinet. The Labour portfolio is only one of many that are demanding thorough attention and strong leadership from Ministers. The slow progress towards enacting legislation to improve labour relations, attributable, in part, to cautious regard for full consultation with union leaders and others, is an example of how action on Government policy is lagging behind the needs of the times. The multiplying demands on Ministers in all spheres might well mean that greater use should be made of Parliamentary undersecretaries.

Looking more broadly at the work required of the Government and of Parliament, the argument for a much larger House of Representatives is reinforced year by year. There is increasing evidence for this in the complexity of executive decisions: in the need for a wide range of talent in Parliament and its committees; and in the growing feeling among electors that Parliamentarians have become a group apart from the rest of the community. This is unsatisfactory to electors and elected alike. A larger Parliament would restore some of the communication between electors and representatives that has been lost in recent decades. It would permit a better distribution of executive responsibility by the Government; and possibly avoid further delegation of authority to a variety of boards and committees outside Parliament Parliamentary capacity to handle more work, without unduly burdening individual members, might also reverse the trend—of decades rather than years—towards government by regulations passed by the Executive Council instead of Statute law approved by the House. This is one of the features of modem government that has lead to a widespread impression that Parliament has lost much of its authority. The country now needs a Government with a strong and resolute hand; Parliament must be strengthened, too.