WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1908. THE PLAINT OF CABINET MINISTERS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 30, 5 February 1908, Page 6

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1908. THE PLAINT OF CABINET MINISTERS.

An important aspect of the suggested increase in the number of Cabinet Ministers, which was not touched in our article on the general question yesterday, is tho disturbance- which it would involve in tho balance of power in. th© Houso of Representatives. The power of the Government of tho day is already a good deal greater than i 3 wholesome. Except on very rare occasions, during the last fifteen years th« alleged independence of the House has been a negligible quantity, and though the death of Mr. Seddon removed tho chief personal cause of its capitulation to influence, and it may be a century or more before any of his successors can assert the- same ascendency, it must be remembered that, on the other hand, tho general tendency is towards an increase of the powers of th© Executive. Every enlargement of the functions of Government means an increase of power, legitimate and illegitimate, as the most ct.reless can realise by a glance at any new department, and the new responsibilities which it entails upon Ministers, and thf> new offices which it places at their disposal. This steady growth of executive power means that the normal safeguards against its abuse should not be intentionally relaxed. Where it is possible, they should b& rather strengthened than weakened, and one of tho most obvious of them would be seriously weakened if the number of Ministers were to be increased proportionately to the strength of the House. Seven Ministers in a House of eighty — for one must of necessity be assigned to the Legislative Council — is a quite large enough proportion, and if it be remembered that only t seventy-six of the members are Europeans, and that the four Maori members are so dependent upon the favour of tho Government that it can practically always rely upon their votes, tho proportion may well appear too large already. When the question of increasing the number of Ministers was last before Parliament, this phase of it received careful anc' effective attention, and it is interesting to recall that a member of tho present Cabinet was largely responsible for this result. "I hope, if it is earned by this House that the number of Ministers is to be increased," said Mr. Fowlds in the debate on the second reading of the Ministers' Salaries and 1 Allowances Bill of 1900, "it will also be insisted upon that the number cf members of the House shall be increased in proportion. . . . There is no doubt at all, if we had the numb?r of Ministers increased as proposed, they would nave a preponderating influence in the voting power of tho House, and I feel sure the country itself will be better satisfied to pay the increased amount that would be required for tho increased number of members rather than have the Houss overbalanced in that respect." Mr. Fowlds's idea, was that the number of Ministers should) not exceed ten per cent, of the House, and as tho original proposal of the then Government was to provide for nine Ministers, ho was not prepared to support it unless the number of inembeTS was increased from sevonty-four to ninety. At that time Mr. Fowlds was regarded as somewhat dangerous in his independence, but on this paint ho received so strong a support from fho general body of the Government party that Mr. Seddon had to give way. A Houso of ninety being too large an order, the number of Ministers was made eight instead of nine, and the number of membeis was increased by a separate Bill to eighty. Parliament may thus be said to be committed to the principlo that tho ratio of Ministers to members should not exceed ten per cent. The dilemma for Ministers accordingly is whether they ' are prepared to violate this principle or to recommend an increase in the number of tho members of the Houso. We do not believe that anybody would for a moment entertain tho latter suggestion on its own merits, and there seems to be a fatal objection to it at the present time in the recent redistribution of seats and tho near approach of the general election. Thus, apart from tho cumbrousness and the oxpenss which the scheme would at any time involve, there is a conclusive reason against putting it into operation just now. The real remedy lies, as we suggested yesterday, in the opposite direction. Not an increase in I the supply of Ministers, but a diminution of the demands upon their strength, is what is needed ; and tho Cabinet itself points tho way in the business upon which it was engaged yesterday. The appointment of Public Servico Classification and Superannuation Boards under -the legislation of. last session means that important functions in the administration of the Civil Service are being entrusted fo bodies which, though presided over by % Minister, aro essentially non-political. 'How much would be heard of the overwork of Ministers if the powers of these boards coxild be so extended as to remove all tho harassing details of civil service administration from the constant personal supervision of Ministers ? When the Ministers' Salaries and Allowances Bill was before the House, Mr. Seddon actually urged as a- reason for increasing the pay of Ministers that in this country they discharge the functions of a Public Service Board, for which, in other colonies, heavy sums are paid to an outside body. This defence was really a decisive condemnation of tho system which makes such inroads upon the time and strength of Ministers as to incapacitate them for the real problems of statesmanship, and ultimately, and in extreme cases, for anything else. Mr. Seddon's plea also supplies the answer to the present Premier's proposal. Let the billet question be delegated to a Public Servico Board, and the problem of Ministerial overwork will be solved in a way which the costly and futile proposal under consideration can never rival.