TIRED MINISTERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13673, 14 February 1908, Page 7

TIRED MINISTERS.

ARE THEY OVERWORKED

VIEWS OF AN EX-MINISTER,

[BY TELEGRAPH.— OWN CORR2SPONDENT. j

Wellington* , Wednesday. The Hon. T. W. Hislop, who was Colonial Secretary, Minister for Charitable Aid, and Minister for Education in the Atkinson Government of 1887-1891, was asked by a press representative for bis opinions on the " strenuous life," as led by Ministers of the Crown in New Zealand. "Mv own. experience," said Mr. Htslop, "is that the work of a Cabinet Minister, if done regularly, needn't hurt anyone capable of undertaking the duties. It was ! thought 20 years ago that there were too many" Ministers, and they were reduced in number. This reduction -was supported by the present Government party. "I have been rather amused by the suggestion that has been made," "he said, "that it is only since the advent of the late Mr. Ballance as Premier that the business of the country has been managed by the Minister instead of by the heads of Departments. Those who knew such men as the late Sir Francis Bell, Sir Julius Vogol, Sir Win. Fitzherbert, and Mr. James Richmond, to ea.y nothing of Sir George Grey and many others whom I might mention, would be surprised at being informed that they were not Ministers who directed affairs, or that they were not men who devoted their complete energies to the carrying out of their duties. Take Sir Frederick Whitaker, for instance. No man. occupying a Ministerial position has ever put so much work through his own hands, yet he retained office until he was an old man, and' was the head of a very large legal practice until ho reached the age of 83. The late Sir John Hall -was regarded as one who unnecessarily managed the smallest details of his Departments, and who worked at all hours, yet he was able to reach, as we all know, a very advanced age. " I do not think," Mr. Hi slop went on to say, that the increase of the population, or the increase in the number of Departments, necessarily means.that the work of the Ministers is greater. In the times when we were struggling to find ways and means, and had more difficulty in deciding on which work the money available should be spent, the tasks of Ministers were far harder than they are now. In those days there 'were just the same difficulties with regard to rates of wages and other social matters covered by the legislation which has since been enacted, but there was this difference, there was not then, as now, a Department presumably able to deal with such matters, and, therefore, they should occupy less of the time of Ministers than, formerly.

There is a notion that most of our rebrms have only recently taken place, but f you consider the condition of the law, say in 1876, when the unity of the Doninion. was established, and examine the changes that were made prior to 1890, and men the changes that have been mad© since that date,.you will eee that the measures of reform were greater in the former period than in the latter. 'There is doubtless a difference of opinion as to the necessity for Ministers to travel as they. do nowadays. My own impression is that a systematic visiting by the Minister, after the fullest information by reports and from the Departments, ought not to take up a great deal of his time'. "Look at the trend of recent legislation, and wo how the Departments are beginning to over-ride local government, and to increase their power and influence. Unfortunately, too, these trespasses are accompanied by the old system, of money aids, 'which we used to light against as inimical to pure government. Take the Fire Brigades Act: A true decision as to adopting it is interfered with by financial considerations. The Tramways Bill of last session was another encroachment. There can be no doubt that both these Bills wore the emanations of public Departments. The only real factor undermining the health of Ministers, as well as other members of the House who conscientiously perform their duties, is the mode in which the latter end of the session is always conducted. In my opinion that could be reformed.

" Another principle that has unfortunate-ly-been carried out in the superlative degree is that it- is necessary for either party in the State to remain in office continuously. Formerly Ministers did what they thought necessary for the carrying on of public affairs and for reforms, and then they were prepared to take the opinion of the House and the country upon the question of their continuance, without making, as has been done since, violent efforts towards retaining office."