UNDER-SECRETARIES

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 August 1936, Page 5

UNDER-SECRETARIES

GOVERNMENT DECISION OPPOSED

[PEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

WELLINGTON, August 6.

In the House, Mr. Savage moved the second reading of the Civil List Amendment Bill. He said the Bill provided for the appointment of Undersecretaries, and where there was a job to do, it would be done at once, and the only way to do it was to get Assistance from some member qualified. Sir A. Ransom said the last Government and previous Governments had carried on, and he said where the Min•iriter allowed the functions of his ofitee to get out of his own hands, he Ibst. a certaifi amount of his control. Tire appointment of Under-Secretaries also meant that, a larger number of persons would have access to secret documents. The Prime Minister had had not explained why it was necessary to intrqduce a new departure at the present stage of the country’s history. It would tend to make politics a profession, and a member would not. be expected to do any other work. He asked if the appointments of Undersecretaries were to be made by the Prime Minister or bj’ the Caucus of the Prirty? Were Undersecretaries to be provided with a private secretary and typist? He believed it was wasteful extravagance, and would lead to inefficient work. He could not see how trie innovation would lead to better Government. He thought the Bill represented weakness, and was a step backward instead of forward.

Air. Fraser said the spirit displayed by Sir A. Ransom was not worthy of him. The Bill should be considered on its merits, and it should not be suggested the Bill was brought forward to PLACATE HIS SUPPORTERS who could not be made Cabinet Ministers. Ever since he had been in the House, he had heard Ministers saying they needed assistance, and the growing duties of the Government meant the duties had to be delegated to Un-der-Secretaries, as was done in Great Britain. It was foolish for anybody to say that in a growing country things should remain static, and should not move forward. Regarding the appointment of Under-Secretaries, he was certain that if he wanted assistance, he was going to say with whom he was going to work. Air. Smith said that in a Afinister’s office there were routine matters that could well be attended to by a junior clerk, and did not need an Undersecretary al £6OO yearly to attend to. He did not think the present move would justify the expense. If Alinisters had too much to do, more Ministers should be appointed. Mr. Hamilton was sure the new system would cause confusion. He thought there should be a limit to the number of Under-Secretaries. He also contended there should be a member of the Native race in the Ministry. ' Mr. Savage, in reply, said the Government was undertaking a house building scheme, and a man of vision arid energy would be required. He would be an Under-Secretary. Referring to allegations of expense. Mr. Savage, said at present a Alember of Parliament received £450. The Undersecretary would receive £6OO, and as it was proposed at present to appoint only one Under-Secretary, the cost would be £l5O. The second reading was challenged, but was carried by 43 to 13, and the House went into committee, and the short title was still under discussion when progress was reported.