The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, July 31, 1935. LABOUR’S TEAM WORK PROJECT.

Grey River Argus, 31 July 1935, Page 4

The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, July 31, 1935. LABOUR’S TEAM WORK PROJECT.

Without reflecting at all upon the civil service in this or any other British country, it may be said that not only administratively, but legislatively, the members play yearly an increasing part in the government of the state. It has indeed come to such a pass that Cabinet Ministers have become completely accustomed to having even decisions of the highest, importance to be made almost ent.rely by their departmental subordinates. The inevitable result has been a rapid inception of rule that is becomingless and less democratic in pro portion as it is becoming more and more bureaucratic. There is the spectacle of the great majority of the representatives of the people playing in each Parliament. a smaller part in government. So notorious has this development been, and so much like mere automatons have Governmental followers in Parliament bt come, that it has led to their being called voting machines. Much public interest must therefore be occasioned by the announcement which the Leader of the Opposition last evening made in his address at Gisborne. He disclosed the plan of the Labour Party, when it is returned to office, for the utilising of the

abilities of every Government Member? of Parliament, in the ad ministration of the country and in the formulation of legislation. Each Minister, under this governmental system, would have associated with him a number of his fellow Members of Parliament in the work of his Departent. The selection of each of these departmental committees of Members would be. determined by their respective interests, training, and capacity. The representatives also of districts particularly interested in certain departments — as, for instance, manufacturing, dairying, mining, fruit growing, or wool production —would be associated with the Ministers. in charge of thos e industries. Like wise, those Members specially qualified to deal with finance, education, or any other national enterprise, would bp given scope 1 o utilise their talent:-l for the public advantage. As Mr Savage remarks. the delegation of Parliamentary and Ministerial responsibility and authority has gone already to the utmost extreme in New Zealand, as exemplified by the appointment of so many Commissions and Boards and other bodies. These are always costly, often futile, and frequent ly sectional and non-representa-tive. Apart from them, and also from the Order-in-Couneil innovations, which leave the community in perplexity, the higher civil servants have too much responsibility thrust upon them, and at the same time are clothed with powers which do not properly belong to them. This arises, largely from the fact that the departmental head is left with no other recourse but to rely on subordinates to handle a great many matters of wide importance. With say half a dozen Members of Parliament sharing the work, and in a degree the responsibility, of Departmentol activity, much time would be saved in Parliament, while a better knowledge of legislation and administration would be spread, not only among legislators, but among the public generally. The innovation proposed W one which needs no dis ♦■'SvOui, > e of functions, nor any constitutional changes for its introduction. Such team work would issue largely in an advisory activity, because the head of

each Department would still re- ■ main fully answerable to Parlia-I ment. The result would, how- I ever, be a wise div “sion of labour | both in administration and in the I framing of legislation. The I counsels of a. committee of Mem- I bers would obviously facilitate the work of every department, and at the same time increase the efficiency of the Igislators through bringing them into more direct touch with the work which they are elected to do. The principle would undoubtedly prove valuable for any Administration irrespective of its political colour, but it has remained for the New Zealand Lobour Party to recognise its utility, and to adopt it as a means to the davant age of the Slate. It should prove a great step forward in government. and serve to save the Parliamnetary system from a good deal of the justifiable criticism to which inefficiency has been sub jeeting it in every country. It would permit of the fullest ser vice being rendered by every Member of Parliament, and it is more than probable that once it were introduced, a change in gov ernments would not do away’ with it, because the advantages of such co-opration would speedil become evident to everybody’