SUPERFLUOUS MINISTERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21264, 19 February 1931, Page 8

SUPERFLUOUS MINISTERS.

The suggestion, which appeared in an interview in the Daily Times yesterday, that a wise step in administrative economy would be a reduction in the number of members of the Government holding Ministerial rank is not new, but weight is given to it by the fact that it has now come from one who has had an experience that entitles him to speak with authority on the subject. There has probably been no time at which a greater necessity existed for a reduction, wherever practicable, in the number of highlypaid administrative officials in the country. In the case of Ministers of the Crown, a reduction is not only practicable, but distinctly desirable on account of the saving that would accrue without loss of efficiency, since efficient administration does not depend upon a multitude of counsellors so much as upon their individual value in special knowledge and experience. The present Government includes no fewer than thirteen Ministers with portfolios, and an additional Minister without a portfolio. Nearly one-seventh of the personnel of the House of Representatives and nearly one half of the strength of the United Party in that Chamber is provided with Ministerial rank. That there is any actual need for the existence of a Government of this numerical strength can hardly be contended by those who have had administrative experience. The members of the Government do not, of course, draw full salaries, because the Civil List Act limits the amount which may be drawn by Ministers, and apparently, in existing circumstances, that amount is apportioned by the Cabinet among those holding office. All the members of the Government, however, are entitled to, and doubtless claim, full ministerial expenses when they are absent from Wellington, and it is a fact, as was observed in the interview to which reference has been made, that Ministers are frequently away from the administrative headquarters on what is sometimes vaguely described as departmental business. At one time Parliament made a practice of calling for returns that showed the amount of the expenditure upon Ministerial travelling allowances and expenses, but in recent years these interesting figures have not been divulged. It may be assumed, however, from the frequency with which visits of Ministers to different parts of New Zealand are reported that the expenses account is of imposing dimensions. The extent of the travelling on the part of Ministers lends emphasis to the observation, made in the interview in yesterday’s issue, that there arc certain * departments, with experienced staffs throughout the country, which practically run themselves, so that the offices of the Ministers in charge of them are in reality mere sinecures. The Prime Minister has shown commendable courage in his proposals for meeting the economic situation, and it would be an equally courageous act on his part were he now to devote some attention to a revision of the number of his colleagues in his Cabinet. It is very unlikely that the affairs of the country would suffer through the reposal of authority in the hands of fewer political heads of departments than at present. The people of New Zealand do not sigh, with Childe Harold, for “one fair Spirit for my minister,” having the example of the spirited Signor Mussolini in mind, but they would have no cause for lamentation if the number of Ministers of the Crown in the Dominion were reduced. On the contrary, they must realise that some members of the Government, including Ministers who, not to put a too fine point upon it, are novices at their work, are quite superfluous.