"BOUND TO RESIGN"

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 106, 31 October 1942, Page 8

"BOUND TO RESIGN"

MR. HOLLAND'S ACTION

CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION

"The ill-devised attempt 'to govern the country with two separate Ministries and Cabinets has broken down. It was bound to fail for the simple reason that such an administration did not conform to good constitutional practice," stated Dr. O. C. Mazenh garb in an address last night to friends and supporters of the National, Party in the Wellington Central electorate. Dr. Mazengarb expressed the opinion that the big majority of people are heartily sick and tired of the present Government and would welcome a change if it could be achieved without disrupting the war effort. "Taking quite a dispassionate and non-party view," said Dr. Mazengarb, "I am very greatly concerned about the way in which the law is being flouted, our constitutional principles ignored, and a wholly wrong attitude adopted towards the inherent rights of the individual. We are fast becoming a slovenly democracy submitting to a pernicious bureaucratic control which does not pay proper regard ito the rules of decency and good government. I want to make an appeal to you, and through you, for a return to simplicity, order, and decency in the conduct of public affairs." ONE COURSE ONLY. Dealing with the Waikato coal strike, Dr. Mazengarb said that the Labour Ministers accepted the challenge of the strikers, but counted' not the cost. They tried to govern and failed to govern. The constitutional position was that if a Government could not govern it should get out and make room for a Government which could and would govern. When it appeared that the Prime Minister intended to go back upon the earlier decision not to interfere with the course of justice, Mr. Holland and his colleagues of necessity had to consider their position in the Cabinet. No self-respect-ing man could stay in a Ministry with men who showed they had not the capacity to control or with Ministers who were prepared to submit tamely to the demands of men whom they had already denounced in such strong terms. CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE. There was, however, a much bigger question; a question of constitutional law was involved. The plain fact was that under the law and custom of our Constitution, Mr. Holland was bound to resign. It was a well-established rule .that whenever a decision was made by Cabinet it was binding upon all Ministers inside or outside of the Cabinet, whatever their individual opinions might be. This was what was called "the doctrine of collective responsibility." Once a decision was made by Cabinet or any matter of policy or principle all Ministers had the choice of two alternatives-—either they must support that decision in Parliament and before the country, or leave the Ministry. The rule was clearly stated in all the text-books. Anyone, therefore, who suggested that Mr. Holland and his colleagues might have protested against the decision of Cabinet and voted against it in the House, while still retaining their places in the War Administration, betrayed a gross ignorance of constitutional law and procedure. Dr. Mazengarb said he was fully aware that at the urgent, request of the Prime Minister of England a temporary arrangement was made for a modification of the rule in 1931. If Mr. Fraser had made a similar urgent request on this occasion, there might have been some call upon Mr. Holland to reconsider his intended resignation. The Prime Minister knew for some days of his protest and probable resignation, but he made no proposal which would allow Mr. Holland to remain in the Ministry while voting against the Government. Therefore, that possible exception to the rule regarding the collective responsibility of all Ministers need not be considered. Whatever, therefore, anybody might think of the propriety of Mr. Holland's resignation, there could be no escape from the conclusion that, in law, he was bound to resign. SECRECY OF CABINET ROOM. An even more serious position arose following the resignation, and he regretted to say that the Prime Ministrr himself was responsible for a grave breach of constitutional law. When men entered the Cabinet they assumed a new status as Ministers of the Crown. They retained their duties to their constituents and their party, but they assumed new duties to the King and his representative. In their exalted positions they were obliged by bath to maintain the confidential character of their proceedings as Executive Councillors. No Minister, whether he resigned or stayed in the Cabinet, was entitled to reveal any of the secrets of the Cabinet room or to say how any other Minister spoke or voted. In this connection Mr. Holland's retiring statement was a model of constitutional propriety. But he was amazed to find that the Prime Minister (possibly to secure what he imagined would be a party advantage) in his reply committed an unpardonable breach of constitutional law. Mr. Fraser had opened his breach of the law by saying, "Here are the facts for the people of New Zealand to judge for themselves," and had then proceeded to give the names of the Ministers present at the Cabinet meeting, the views which were expressed, and the result of the voting. This rule of constitutional law was said to be based upon the oath of secrecy taken by Cabinet Ministers as members of the Executive Council. The words of the oath were: "That I will not directly nor indirectly reveal such matters as shall be debated in Council and committed to my secrecy, but that I will in all things be a true and faithful Councillor. So help me God."

The other reason for the rule was that secrecy was necessary to enable an outspoken discussion in Cabinet among his Excellency's advisers. No Minister of the Crown could safely express his views, even tentatively, upon the many intimate and confidential matters which were discussed in Cabinet if he were in constant fear that one of his colleagues might afterwards say, "I'll tell what you said last week or how you voted in Cabinet on such and such a question." There could be no freedom of debate among Ministers of the Crown if that sort of thing was permissible.

The meeting passed a resolution congratulating Mr. Holland on the stand he took and protesting against "the action of the Prime Minister in seeking to obtain a party advantage by revealing the secrets of the Cabinet room, thereby breaking the law of the Constitution and causing an unseemly debate in Parliament." The resolution also called upon public men to observe the rules of "propr'ety and right conduct."