THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1940 CHOOSING A LEADER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23620, 2 April 1940, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1940 CHOOSING A LEADER

Death has removed from office the man who served New Zealand as Prime Minister for four crowded years. Grief at his passing has fittingly been given wide and heartfelt expression, but in the midst of sorrow it is well to remember that the task of government must still go on. A King dies and a new King reigns; under the British constitution there is no interruption in the ordered processional of the Monarchy. But the Parliamentary system, allied throughout the British Empire with the conception of constitutional monarchy, does not necessarily make provision for such smooth transition. The Monarchy is hereditary ; the Parliamentary leadership of any self-governing country under the British Crown can be determined only by the will of the people. In the present case, the choice of New Zealand's political leader must be made by the Parliamentary representatives of a majority of the electors —that is, by the members of the Labour Party in the House of Representatives. With the death of Mr. Savage, the Ministry that he led was placed in a position where its members carried on only until they were confirmed in office under a new leader or until they were replaced. The temporary confirmation of their authority has now been effected through the GovernorGeneral's request to Mr. Eraser, the late Prime Minister's acknowledged deputy, to form a Ministry, but the Government thus maintained in office must be regarded constitutionally as an interim administration awaiting the verdict of its own supporters in Parliament. A caucus of the Parliamentary Labour Party will probably be held in Wellington this week and it is then that the future of the Government will be determined.

Under existing conditions, the attention of the whole country will be fixed on the forthcoming deliberations of the Labour, caucus. The points at issue have far more than a mere party interest. Upon the decisions of the caucus will depend the form of government that the country must accept, at least until the next general election, due toward the end of 1941. Meanwhile New 2'ealand is at war and strong and trustworthy political leadership is essential for a proper discharge of the Dominion's responsibilities. For that reason, it is to be hoped that the Parliamentary members of the Labour Party will, act speedily and with resolution. Indecision at the present juncture would be inexcusable, more especially because illconcealed difficulties within the Government party are a potential source of weakness to the country as a whole, There has been argument in the past among Labour politicians as to the methods adopted in the selection of Mr. Savage s Ministiy which survived irom the end of 1935 with only one minor change in personnel. Members of the Cabinet were originally chosen by the Prime Minister himself, carrying out a task entrusted to him by all his colleagues. This was in keeping with well-established political precedent, but there has been subsequent complaint, openly voiced, that the practice thus followed was at variance with "the democratic principles of the party." A group of Labour members has been insisting that the task of selecting Ministers is one not for the Prime Minister and leader of the party but for the party caucus, as a whole. This view has been put forward so strongly that it has led to a considerable measure of dissension within the party and it is not unlikely that the pending caucus will see the issue brought finally to a head. If it were a matter that concerned only the Labour Party it could be dismissed as a domestic squabble ; unfortunately, it concerns all the people, for the ultimate decision must have an important bearing on the future conduct of government within the Dominion.

At this stage it cannot be stated with any certainty whether there will be a rival candidate against Mr. Fraser for the leadership of the party. To the outsider, at any rate, it would appear that Mr. Fraser's claims, based asi they are on his conscientious and able work as deputy leader of the Government, are sufficiently compelling, but in party politics queer things may happen. Provided, however, that he is confirmed in the high office to which he was called yesterday by the Governor-General, it would be a retrograde step if he were denied the right lo select his own administrative team. The idea of an elective Cabinet may appeal to those who are inclined to belittle democracy by overworking it, but in practice it would inevitably give rise to grave risks of inefficiency and confusion. Even in the most democratic countries there must be a measure of individual leadership. The office of Prime Minister is essentially one of authority and it cannot be argued that authority is reasonably held jf a political leader is forced to allocate administrative tasks to colleagues not of his own choosing. Possibly the present Cabinet in New Zealand would not suffer by a certain amount of reconstruction, but the task of reconstruction should be entrusted to the man who is primarily responsible for the direction of the Government's work. The duty confronting the Labour Party caucus when it meets in Wellington is, first and foremost, to choose a leader capable of developing to the full the Dominion's war effort and of organising domestic affairs in the interests of the people as a whole Such a leader, sensibly exercising the authority to which a Prime Minister is entitled, need not appeal in vain for the co-operation of all New Zealanders in the vital national tasks that urgently require performance*