Evening Post. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1908. MORE CABINET MINISTERS?

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 29, 4 February 1908, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1908. MORE CABINET MINISTERS?

It is greatly to be feared that a Ministry which set out with apparently wellfounded pretensions to a policy of retrenchment and reform is contemplating another large addition to the cost of governing the country on the old, bad lines. Though we were repeatedly assured that nothing grandiose or extravagant was intended as the accompaniment of tho transformation of the col ony into a Dominion and of its M.H.R's. into M.P's., it was noticeable that about tho same time private members of Parliament began to suffer from the idea that they were insuflicientlj paid, and some of them wero not afraid to say so. At one time they were proud to offer themselves on the altar of patriot ism for' £240 a year, and in anticipation considered that the height of human felicity would have been reached if the offer was accepted. Not a hint was dropped to the constituencies that the amount was insufficient, but in duo course the discovery was made, and whether it was that on closer inspection the glory proved inadequate, or that it seemed so great ap to demand a commonsurate increase in the cash consideration, a rise from 2240 to £300 was voted by men who were satisfied that they were eiltitled to it and need not ask their employers' leave. Now again the Parliamentary bosom is stirred with vague cravings after still higher things, and begins to ask whether a Dominion M.P. is not a good deal better than a colonial M.H.R., and if so, whether , he does not deserve a corresponding increase of pay. If the precedent of tho last rise is to be followed, and the intending recipients alone are to have a say in the matter, there is of course no room for doubt as to the result. Yet we should not have been disposed to treat the question seriously, but for some recent Ministerial announcements on a kindred subject which it is impossible to ignore. It has been plainly stated by the Premier, and with even greater emjf!usis by his steady-going colleague, the Minister of Lands, that the time has come for an increase in the number of Ministers. "If statistics were taken of the fate of leading public men in this country," said Mr. M'Nab at Ohakuno, "it would be found that the death-rate of late years was greater than in almost any profession that could be named." Without dwelling upon the fallacy of supposing that a man who dies iy office has therefore been killed by office, or that any accurate conclusion could be reached by a compaiison based on so small a ntunbex ot instances, it is but fair to concede that Ministerial life in this country, under present conditions, is a tyranny which imposes a severe and in somo cases a breaking strain. It must also bo admitted that in the interests of humanity, no less than of good government, some drastic change is imperatively needed. But we strongly dissent from the theory that the remedy is to be found, along the lines suggested by Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. SJ'Xab. There are now eight Ministers, and the argument is that they should be increased to ten ia order to cope with the work. It seems to us that one very simple test will sufllcn to de monstrate tho unsoundness of this contention. Prior to 1900 the number of Ministers was nominally six, but actually seven, but in that year— and the ominous bearing of the change upon the present position is that it was accompanied by an increase in the salaries of Ministers and also in the number and salaries of members — tho number of Ministers was increased to , eight. Now, is there anybody in the Ministry or out of it who really believes that the individual work of Ministers has been diminished sinco 1900 proportionately to the increase in their number? It will, of course, be said that thebusiness of administration has so increased during the interval as to counterbalance or outweigh the advantage conferred by tho division of labour among a larger number of "hands, and there is a measure of truth in the contention. But one only needs to look ahead in order to realise how dangerous this pica is. If eight Ministeis sufficed TThen onr population was SOO,000, but ten ar« required for a popula-' tion of ' a million, are we to have a cabinet of fifty when the country is as populous as the Commonwealth, and one of four hundred when we number as many millions as the United Kingdom? It is clearly absurd to Mippo&e that the number of Ministers can continue to increase indefinitely in proportion to the population ot tho country, and anybody who remembers that most Governments have millions of people to deal with, and do not need a Cabinet as large as a regiment for the purpose, will appreciate the wisdom of the contention that eight Ministers are not enough for this Dominion. The fact is — to borrow the language of a more exact science than politics — that not a quantitative but a qualitative change is needed. The present number of niinisetrs is insufficient for conducting the business of the' country on the present lines, nor will any increase suffice to make a proper job of it. Mr. M'Nab himself has really supplied Ih© answer/ to his own argument. "The Minister's duty," he saij, "was not to cany on tho actual administration he was to be the voice and directing head representing the Parliament and the representatives of the people in carrying out the policy which they decreed should be ths policy of the country." The Seddonian ideal of government required v the personal attention of Ministers to the pettiest details of administration ; and if the present Cabinet will re-vert to a more sensible system they will save themselves from the premature collapse which overtook Mr. Seddon, and vastly increase the efficiency of their administration without any such change as that now proposed. The true course to be followed in the circumstances we shall endeavour to make clear in Tf second article.