The Times SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1940. Should Mr Nash Resign?

Manawatu Times, Volume 65, Issue 270, 2 November 1940, Page 6

The Times SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1940. Should Mr Nash Resign?

Amongst the all too many posts occupied by the Hon. Walter Nash, Minister of Finance, and so forth, is that of Minister of Marketing. This portfolio is, above all, one intended to serve the dairy industry. But now, after four full years of Mr. Nash’s services in that capacity, the very people of whom he is morally the servant have asked him to resign his post. A vote of no corifidcnee in him as Minister of Marketing has been paid by the Dominion Dairy Conference, a body unsurpassed as representative of Dominion-wide interests.

The passing of such a resolution by such a responsible body is, we believe, unique in the constitutional history of this country. A grave responsibility has now fallen upon both the Prime M'nister and Mr- Nash. There is the resolution passed. Should that be acted upon? Should Mr. Nash resign? Politically, the resignation could be ill-afforded by the party in power, as Mr. Nash is one of the few strong men in Labour’s Cabinet. And, again, that resignation must certainly reflect upon Cabinet as a whole, for in theory at least, a Minister is a member of a team, all members of which share responsibility for policy matters. Of course, it is widely held that Mr. Nash has largely been a law unto himself in his portfolios. This would greatly case the situation should the Prime Minister decide to act. To relieve Mr. Nash of the portfolio of Marketing would not in the public mind reflect to any real degree upon the Prime Ministers or Cabinet generally.

So much for the purely political aspect of the case. That does not, however, exhaust its ramifications. The life of the nation is not solely concerned with politics- Just as the members of a church held inalienably the right to relieve of his post an unsatisfactory minister, or the members of a football club to dispense with an unsatisfactory secretary; so, too, have those most concerned with the Marketing Department the right to relieve of his post as Minister one whom they regard as unsuitable. They have so declared their opinion. And as this country is democratic, so is a Minister the servant and not the'master of those concerned. That being conceded, it would logically follow that Mr. Nash is morally obliged to resign from his post of Minister of Marketing. By the use of power politics, which are condemned in overseas countries, he could retain his post; but only at the cost of flouting a moral obligation.

As a servant, he has failed to give satisfaction. Not only to the dairy industry but to almost every other section of producers with whom his department has worked. He has, in all but a plain statement of the fact, been forded to admit the complete breakdown of his “guaranteed price’’ policy and its concomitant “insulate New Zealand” theory. On the record, impartially reviewed, the dairy industry has brought in a verdict of no confidence.

Mr. Nash is undeniably an able man- He is determined, has unusual ability in debate and address, great readiness with statistics, a good voice and presence, and a strong personality, all valuable attributes to a politician. But, and it is so big a but, he lacks a practical knowledge of industry and commerce.

A servant of the nation has been tried and found wanting by the particular industry which he has chosen to serve. Should he not then make way for another? Amongst the other members of his party is there someone who could take his place? If so, will he resign? The farmers of the Dominion will await with the keenest interest the reaction of the Minister to their expression of ' opinion.