The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1915. THE CABINET CHANGES

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9092, 10 July 1915, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1915. THE CABINET CHANGES

The action of the caucus in relieving the Hon. James Allen of the portfolios of Finance and Education is open to only one interpretation. It is a vote of want of confidence from within the party. To the extent it reaches, it is also a recognition of the widespread dissatisfaction that exists concerning the existing administration, and a concession to the popular demand that there should be some change. The explanation offered that Mr Allen’s hands are too full to enable him to give sufficient time to Defence simply servos to emphasise our argument. Mr Allen has persisted in keeping his hands too full, in retaining control of departments that he could not properly administer, and neglecting to avail himself of the assistance that was available from within the ranks of bis own party. In this design, he has been assisted by his own colleagues, wh?> have tolerated the congestion of work that has resulted so deplorably, rather than call to their aid the resources that might, have been employed to meet the strain. It was hopeless to expect satisfactory administration from such a system. The story of negligence, incompetence and ineptitude that is now being revealed shows that the administration has been fai from satisfactory. Consequently there is discontent in the public mind, dissatisfaction in the ranks of the party,, and in the end a rearrangement that relieves one Minister who has been tho chief object of complaint, and places heavier burdens on the shoulders of other Ministers who are already palpably overworked. These contingencies might have been avoided, however, if the Government had chosen in the first instance to fill the vacancy in the Cabinet caused by the retirement of Mr Fisher instead of attempting to spread-eagle work that is admittedly beyond its power. Surely the administrative ability of the party is not confined to the few men who occupy seats on tho Treasury benches. The moment is one calling for the services of a complete Ministry, qualified to carry on tho business of government thoroughly and efficiently, and if \ the party cannot provide sufficient men capable of doing this, it is not entitled to govern.

The pity of it is that when a change was being made Mr Allen was not relieved of the portfolio of Defence. It is in this department that his failure has been most conspicuous. Ho has had a perfectly free hand to do as he pleased, with an unrestrained command of money, and there is no reason whatever why the most satisfactory results should not have been achieved. We are quite prepared to concede that Mr Allen’s heart is in the work, and that no man could have been inspired by a more patriotic desire to hasten our resources to the assistance of the Mother Country,

but, nevertheless, he is not the man for this particular position. In the first place, as the controlling spirit of a democratic army, ho is not sufficiently in sympathy with the men. If he had been, the scandal of the canteen would never have been heard of, and the exploitation of the troops on their way to the front would have been impossible. In, the second place, he is so selfsatisfied and dogmatic that whatever is must of necessity bo right- He is not prepared to listen to the counsels of experience and professional knowledge. The rule of red tape is allowed to prevail, to the menace of the most important interests at stake. If it were otherwise, the scandalous happenings in connection with the epidemic at Trentham would have been avoided, and some very valuable lives would probably have been saved. If an illustration is desired, we would simply point to the fact that only an hour or two before Mr Massey announced that the camp at Trentham would be abandoned, on the ground that it was insanitary, Mr Allen was hotly declaring in the House that tho camp was quite sanitary. He was prepared to listen, to no represents tions or remonstrances. These are only tw'o of many directions in which Mr Allen has proved himself unequal to the responsibilities of his position. Bearing in mind the record of the last eleven months, dnd giving Mr Allen credit for tho best intentions, we are convinced that he should not continue to hold the portfolio of Defence, which at the present moment calls for tho highest administrative talent that is available. The transfer of the portfolio of Finance to Mr Massey is a further confession of weakness. We admire the courage of Mr Massey even while we deplore his lack of discretion and judgment. It must be apparent to him that he has no experience of finance—in a word, that ho is a farmer and not a financier. There- has never been a time in the history of this country when it was more important that our finances should be in the most experienced hands than it is at the present moment. We believe that Mr Massey is prepared to do his best, in order that his colleague may be afforded an opportunity of extricating himself from the difficulties he has created for himself, but nevertheless this is no time for amateiir finance. If there is talent in this direction in the ranks of the Government party, it should be made available to the country, and if there is not the outlook necessarily becomes a dismal and disquieting one. Wo have no desire to raise the party issue in this connection, but when we contemplate our administrative record since the outset of the war, we are impressed with the conviction that the control of public affairs is not in the best and most capable hands. So far as Education is concerned, the handing or this portfolio to Sir Francis Bell is a diplomatic way of shelving it altogether. It may be that “Reform” cannot provide more efficient government, and is doing the best it can with the material at its disposal, but the spectacle that is being presented for the contemplation of the'country is both distressful and disheartening.