NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 147, 18 March 1931, Page 8

NOTES OF THE DAY

The country will be impressed by the serious nature of . the statement on the national finances delivered by the Prime Minister last evening in moving the second reading of the Finance Bill. Nor would it be fair to members of the House to suppose they are so immersed in party politics and calculations of factional advantage as not to be able to read the plain message contained in Mr. Forbes s figures. These comprise a warning to “stop, look, listen,” a call to members to see their duty and do it, not on behalf of a single class or faction but of all the people. When New Zealand’s credit is •at stake, it is a time to sink all minor differences and concentrate on assisting the Government to take the measures appropriate in the circumstances. An obligation also rests on the Prime. Minister to ensure that co-operation which is essential by inviting the Opposition Leaders to meet him, by disclosing the position and his plans for meeting it with the utmost frankness, and by giving due consideration to any suggestions that may be offered to facilitate the conduct of Parliament’s business.

It is not surprising that the Secretary for the Dominions should have to admit that “there are certain difficulties” about the arrangements for the Empire Economic Conference at Ottawa in August. An examination of the report published this, morning of. the short reference to the subject in the House of Commons gives the impression that the Dominions are not displaying much- enthusiasm for this second conference. If that is the case, small blame can rest on the Dominions whose Prime Ministers only a few months ago returned empty-handed from London. They do not want to start on another wild goose chase to Ottawa within the year. Unless the British Government has something definite and acceptable to offer, there is little use in staging another of the conferences ot which it seems so inordinately fond. Incidentally, it may be recalled .that, apart from Imperial affairs, New Zealand has pressing business with Canada still unsettled. Our export trade with the senior Dominion threatens to dwindle from over three millions annually to negligible proportions. » The country would be glad to have from the Prime Minister an assurance that the negotiations are being actively pursued and some information of the progress made so far.

Part of the Western Australian Government’s plan to economise involves the retirement of two members of the Cabinet. Mr. Forbes might well consider economising in the same way. No reason can be imagined to justify the size of his present Cabinet. Its 14 members could quite well be reduced to seven without the Administration suffering. A smaller Cabinet, indeed, should make for greater efficiency and a surer executive. Anyone with any experience in public affairs knows that large committees are an embarrassment; a well-chosen, compact body is the ideal for the dispatch of business. Apart from being unwieldy and indeterminate, a large Cabinet is also expensive under the head not only of salaries but of expenses as well. It is notorious that certain members of Mr. Forbes’s Cabinet developed with their portfolios an extravagant taste for travelling which has cost the country a pretty penny. It may be hoped that the Prime Minister will see that his unwieldy Cabinet is a liability rather than an asset, on the score of both efficiency and economy, considerations that have been emphasised by his statement on the national finances in the House last evening.

“Pledge-breakers” has been a favourite epithet this session for Labour members to fling at the United Government. Because they have such conveniently short memories, the Labourites seem to have overlooked the boomerang effect of their verbal missile. The electors will remember, however, that for over two years the Labour Party’s support was responsible for keeping; the Government in office. After all, aiding and abetting pledge-breakers comes to much the same thing as breaking pledges. It was not that the Government consistently aimed to please by presenting measures of which the Labour Party could approve. Time and again Mr. Holland and his colleagues voted with the United Party when the latter’s policy ran directly counter to Labour’s professed platform. For instance, the Government was saved from defeat by Labour voles when in 1929 it was a question of doubling the primage duty and in 1930 of adding another £BOO,OOO to Customs duties. Both these imposts directly contravene Labour’s official platform and, if there is to be talk of “pledge-breakers,” it should be remembered that those who now profess abhorrence of such political infamy, have themselves deliberately broken faith on several occasions with those they claim to represent.