Evening Post. MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1912. MINISTERS AND THE PUBLIC.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 101, 29 April 1912, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1912. MINISTERS AND THE PUBLIC.

The Premier, whose public utterances Bince hie promotion have contained' some carefully studied phraees but very little information, committed himself in his speech at Auckland on Friday to two definite statements regarding the intentions of the Government. In the fil'st place, he made the extraordinarily onerous nature of the responsibilities for the present assumed by Mr. Myere the text for a plea in favour of increasing the number of Ministers. This argument does n&t come as a surprise. 'The appointments already made include two Ministers of whom one ie without a portfolio, and both are without salary. This fact was, in itself, eloquent of the Premier's ideas, and hints have been dropped from, time to time that an alteration of the law would be aek,ed for to allow of the addition of these supernumeraries to the salaried list. There should be two more paid Ministers, said Mr. Mackenzie, and the only reason given for it in the Press Association's summary of his speech is that "they could not govern the affaire of the Dominion properly unless they moved about and came into contact with the people." The implication is that under tho Seddonian and Wardian regimes Ministers were glued too tightly to their office chairs, and that Mr, Mackenzie will set a much better example if he is 6nly given two additional colleagues. The idea is ludicrous." Both Mr. Seddon and Sir Joseph Ward carried the peripatetic policy to extravagant lengths, .but Mr. .Mackenzie is apparently ambitious to carry it still furI ther. . We have always conceded that Ministers should be allowed a reasonable amount of time for travelling, in order to make themselves acquainted with the needs of the country, and to see aud be seen. But this' part of the, business — or pleasure — of Ministers has [ been overdone. Their legitimate^ Work as Ministers has been neglected, and their own strength has been taxed to breaking point in order that they should be able to do the electioneering work of party bosses at the country's cost. Opposition leaders have just as good a right as the Government to ask that the country should foot the bill for party work of this kind, and we we glad to think that in tho present state of politics they will be able to press this "tv quoque" home, The Premier's second point related to the Civil Service. A great deal had been heard in. Wellington, he said, from the CiviJ Servants' point -of view, but he urged that the people, who were the masters, should consider the question from their own point of view.' Are they get ting the service that they expected ?. We are /delighted to find a Liberal Premier putting such a question, for it showa that Saul also is among the prophets. The people are assuredly not getting such a Civil Service as they have a right to expect, in return for tho money that they put into it, and Mr. Mackenzie must know as well as everybody ols& that practjqally the whole responsibility rests upon tho parly which has been in power for more than twenty consecutive years, and of which he is now the leader. The maladministration wnioh has hampered the work of the Civil Service, multiplied improper appointments, diminished efficiency, and increased ex« penditure, is the work of Liberal Ministers. The Classification Acts by which some check has been placed upon the vagaries of political interference with the service are also their work. What remedy has Mr. Mackenzie to suggest? He declares "that the system of promotion by seniority will never do in a progressive country ; the Government must 6elect the best men and craok Jte fingers at those who talk of political favouritism." So far, , we are in entire agree- ! ment with him. The system of promo- \ tion by seniority which has been established by the various Public Services i Classification Acts ia an absurdity which no sensible man would tolerate in the conduct of his own business. But it has been accepted by the country as at least preferable to the unchecked evil of political control. It is a "pis-aller" of which nobody can pretend to bo proud, a confession of inability to run tho country's business en business lines. When, therefore, the Premier says that the Classification Acts should go by the board, ho say* what very few people will regard as intrinsically unreasonable. But a wise man will suspend final judgment until he knows what alternative is. proposed. As to this the Premier first raises our hopes and then dashes them. "The Government must select the best men"— 'that Is an aphorism of such unimpeachable morality that it lfc fit to f;o into a copy-book. But at what is it to "crack dts finger* "V Not at wire-pulling or political favourites, but at "those who talk of political favouritism." The next sentence, in which the Premier says *that he is nor. thinking of a Civil Service Board, unfortunately compels ua to abandon the hope based on a careless perusal of the previous context. He advocates the abandonment of the cast-iron restrictions of classification merely in order to substitute the old and discredited system of unfettered political control. What ground is there for supposing that the new Government has so sloughed off the old Adam of political frailty that it can succeed where all its predecessors have failed ? Did the crowded hour 01. wore or less glorious lite which intervened between -the election of Mr. Mackenzie ! to the leadership of his party and the «weariug-ift o£ hu> Cabinet . huggeat that h« had iuaugurated a uiUkliniuni. in ■

which wire-pulling would ceiise from troubling? Does the one collective act of that Cabinet regarding defence administration suggest that it is strong ■enough to "crack its fingers" even at the pressure of an " insignificant minority?" These questions may be allowed to answer themselves. The argument for a strong, ordered, scientific, independent, and non-,politkal control of ithe Civil Service is really stronger to-day than ever it wa-s. In his favourite metaphorical atyle Mr. Mackenzie cays that to appoint a Civil Service Board would be " like putting a new lid on a. cracked pot," May we retort that his own proposal seems to us like knocking a hole in the bottom of a pot in order to mend a leak tn the sides? If Saul seemed to be among the prophets when he took up his parable against the Civil Service, he falls sadly from grace when he comes to the question of a remedy.