THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN MINISTERS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 10 February 1908, Page 1

THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN MINISTERS.

It has been plainly stated by the Premier, and with even greater emphasis by his steady-going colleague, the Minister for Lanas, that the time has come for an increase in the number of Ministers. ''If statistics were taken of the fate of leading public men in this country,"- said Mr M'Nab at Ohakune, "it .would be found that the death-rate of' late years was greater than in almost any profession that could be named." Without dwelling upon the fallacy- of supposing that a man who dies in, office has therefore been killed by office, or that any accurate'conclusion could bo reached by a comparison based on so small a number of instances, it is but fair, says the "Post," to concede that Ministerial life in this country, under present conditions, is a tyranny which imposes a severe, and in some cases a breaking strain. It must, also be admitted that in the interests of humanity, no ess than of "good government, some Jrastic change is imperatively needed. But we strongly dissent from tho theory that the remedy is to be found along the lines suggested by Sir Joseph Ward and Mr M'Nab. TSere are now eight Ministers, and the argument is that they should be increased to ten in order to'.oope with the work. It seems to us that one very Eimple test Will suffice to demonstrate the unsoundnessidf tbjs contention. Prior to 1900 the ijmnb'er of Ministers was nominally "six, .but actually seven, but in that year-^and the onerous bearing of the chapge~upon the present position is

that it was accompanied by an increase in the salaries of Ministers and also in the number and salaries of members— the number of Ministers was increased to eight. Now, is there anybody in the Ministry or out of it who really believes that the individual work of Ministers has been diminished since .1900; proportionately to the increase in. r their number? If eight Ministers sufficed when our population was 800,000, but ten are required for a population of a million, are we to have a cabinet of 50 when the country is as. populous at the Commonwealth, and one of 400- when we number as many millions v the United Kingdom It was clearly absurd to suppose that the number of Ministers can continue to increase indefinitely in proportion to. the population of the country, and anybody wno remembers that most Governments 'have millions of people to deal with, \ and do not need a Cabinet as large * \ "as a regiment' fo'rthe purpose, will appreciate the wisdom of the contention thai eight Ministers are not enough for this' Domiiiion. . The fact is— to borrow the language of a more exact science than politics — that not a quantitative but a qualitative .change ■is -needed.-j: If the present Cabinet will ; rever'ti tg a? more sensible system 'they ; -will l 'saw ""'them* selves from the premature collapse which, overtook Mr S«ddcrn,;-arid '• vastly increase /the- efficiencyAtof- %& administration without any such change as that now proposed; v.The true course to be followed in;.the circumstances we shall endeavour to make clear in a second article.