Evening Post. THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1912. THE NEW GOVERNMENT

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 10, 11 July 1912, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1912. THE NEW GOVERNMENT

The new ' Ministry made its *bow to the House of Representatives yesterday, received a. cordial welcome, and was grouted without demur a tlu-eo weeks' adjournment in order to prepare its policy. Th« occasion was one for congratulation rather than criticism, and the critical note was kept well in abeyance. Sir ' Joseph Ward, however, managed to vary the monotony by mingling a little acid with his sugar. He was very handsome in his recognition of the " devoted cervices and activity " by which he considered that Mr. Massey had fairly won his high position. But Sir Joseph Ward was decidedly critical as to the composition of Mr. Massoy's Cabinet. To enumerate ihe various cities districts -which, have no representation in the Cabinet and to make that a ground of accusations savours of parochialism rathet- than statesmanship. What the country needs in a Cabinet is a combination of the very best men that are available. Unfortunately in the selection some allowance has to be' made for local prejudices, but to erect what is at best a concession to human, weakness into a canon of fitatesmanship is a mistake for one who has so long been concerned in the work of government to make. It is eulogy and not censure that a Premier deserves who, in the (selection of his colleagues, has allowed merit to rise superior to geographical considerations. A similar observation applies to the theory of class representation which underlay another portion of Sir Joseph Ward's criticism. He wanted to know why the farmers had only one representative in the new Ministry and Labour none at all. The direct representation of Labour in the Ministry could only have been the outcome of much the same process of bargaining and humouring that produced Sir Joseph's flaming Radical programme in February. The best way to promote the interests of the farmer or the labourer is not necessarily to put a farmer or a labourer in the Ministry, and we regret that an exPremier should have lent the weight of his authority to the >dea that sectional and geographical representation should be given priority over the representation of the country as a whole in the construction of a Cabinet. Sir Joseph Ward passed to l«s dubious ground when he proceeded to •criticise the choice of a portfolio for Mr. Bell. It is mainly on account of his eminence as a lawyer that Mr. Bell has been selected for the Leadership of the Legislative Council, and is likely to prove a tower of strength in the Cabinet. Yet the portfolio assigned to Mr. Bell is that of Minister for Internal Allah's, and not of Attorney-Gen-eral. As Mr. Bell himself has acquiesced in the arrangement, we are 6afe in supposing that there is some valid reason for the omission; but no personal consent will turn the edge of Sir Joseph Ward's criticism of the arrangement on its positive side. Is it desirable that the Minister of Internal Affairs should be in the Upper House? As this Department is concerned with the administration of the electoral laws, there is a strong prima facie reason for keeping it in the closest possible touch with the popular Chamber,* and we can well believe Sir Joseph Ward when he says that the practical difficulties of working it from the Legislative Council were such that he had to abandon the attempt. The popular stir caused every year by the issue of totalisator permits, which is also one of the functions of the Minister for v Internal Affairs, was given by Sir Joseph Ward for having the Minister in the House of Representative. We believe that both of the ex-Premier's points are sound, and especially that relating to the administration of the electoral laws. Mr. Massey's reply indicated that he takes the same view. He had made it clear in his opening statement that certain of the portfolios were subject to readjustment later on, when others not yet allotted were being dealt with. In his concluding statement, the Premier also explained that the Department of Internal Affaire and the "contentious subDepartment*" would in due course be assigned to one of the Ministers in the popular Chamber. Considering /the very short time that Mr. Massey allowed himself for the selection of his Cabinet, one ought, perhaps, to wonder .that there is not a good deal more of this kind of work to do. It must ateo be conceded that the three -weeks for which the House has adjourned do not represent, an excessively

become acquainted vrith th« working of their departments and for formulating their policy. Mr. Massey abstained yesterday from any declaration of policy, bat hie previous statement l»av» mad© it eloax that h« will not attempt a very elaborate legislative programme this session. Nobody can object to ttris in the circum&kances, especially as financial admJinstaration and an Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill will supply a crucial test of the Ministry's aims and qualities in two of the most important fields of policy. In the absence of more solid matter, , room bars wandered yesterday into a not very satisfying discussion of the ethics of pledge-breaking. The subject was introduced by Mr. Payne, who possesses a familiarity with its practical eide that cannot be challenged, and now (seeks to pose a* an expert in the theory also. Mr. Payne contended that he himself vras guiltless in the matter, but that Mr. Maseey and his colleagues owed their pt«aeat position to pledge-breaking of the worst kind. We do not feel disposed to discuss onoa more Mr. Payne's remarkable performance in February. That may be aafely left to public opinion and to the judgment of tbe electors of Grey Lynn. But the position of the Liberal cseceders and of others who may bo tempted to follow their leader raises a more interesting question. If the issue were between Ward and Massey, member* who were returned to support the Ward Government could not honourably make use of the land question or anything elae as a plea for breaking away. But the distinction between obligation to a party leader and obligation to a party may be a real though, a subtle one. Having once given a pledge, however, a member cannot obtain absolution from his election committee or from public meetings of his constituent*!. • The electors whose votes imposed the obliga tion can alone release him by a declaration of opinion registered in the same formal way. But of the three Liberals who have joined the Reform Party one at least was returned unpledged or eubject only to a pledge which circumstances have rendered invalid. One of the others wore the party badge apparently without qualification at the General Election, but now attaches a paramount importance to the land question, which, as we pointed out a few days ago', doce not square with, his attitude to a previous no-confidence motion. Members who desire freedom from inconvenient election, pledges will, be well advised to refer the issue to their constituents.