MR FRASER’S ABSENCES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26028, 17 December 1945, Page 4

MR FRASER’S ABSENCES

CALL OF WORLD AFFAIRS IS A CHANGE NECESSARY? By W. Downie Stewart The Prime Minister is about to set out again for London, to attend the United Nations Conference. Already during this year he has been abroad for several months, first, at a Prime Ministers’ Conference in London, and later at the protracted United Nations Conference at San Francisco. Before long probably a series of minor peace conferences will be held as a prelude to the real Peace Conference which cannot be reached until more progress has been made in cleaning up the German situation. It has been truly observed that all politics are tending more and more to become world politics. . , However willing Parliament may be to concurr in these frequent and protracted absences of the Prime Minister it, must soon become a 'question of whether Mr Fraser can continue to carry the double burden of Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs and do justice to both. Even though he has complete confidence in his colleagues there are many domestic problems cropping up from time to time which require his personal ■ decision. At present widespread criticism exists over the lone delays in obtaining Cabinet or Ministerial decisions alif these delays are probably accentuated by the absence of the Prime Minister. The Australian Example Do not these facts suggest that some change is necessary? Should not the two offices, held by Mr. Fraser be separated as they are in England, Australia and elsewhere? This does not mean that the Prime Minister would cease to keep general control of foreign policy but that he would devolve on to a Minister of External Affairs a great amount of detail work. This Minister could attend most of the numerous conferences except those specially confined to Prime Ministers. At present we are kept largely in the dark as to Mr Fraser’s views or what he may commit us to. How necessary this change is can be seen if we imagine tnat Mr Chifley y/as both Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs. Could he have abandoned the present industrial turmoil in Australia and rushed off to the London conference. Surely not. Some such dilemma may face Mr Fraser at any time.' Moreover other Ministers are constantly going overseas. Mr Webb has just returned; Mr Sullivan is in Australia; and it is.said that Mr Nash goes abroad again in February. Compared to Britain or even Australia our overseas interests are small but they are too important to be neglected. The practice of Mr Gladstone was to take a keen interest in foreign affairs but to leave the mam part of the' work to his successive foreign secretaries. Mr Ramsay MacDonald, who earned high praise for his conduct of foreign affairs, found the union of the two positions too much for one man and in his last two Cabinets was Prime Minister only. Safeguards Needed

Of course if the offices are separated great care is required to see that the rime Minister does not unduly interfere or his External Affairs Minister becomes a mere cypher. On the other hand, the External Affairs Minister may take too much on himself and make commitments that should not be made without the ■ Prime Minister being consulted.. “The ideal relation is that the Prime Minister should keep an active supervision but let his Minister develop his -general policy without interference.” It has been suggested in England that as foreign policy is largely outside party politics' the experiment should, be tried of keeping a good Foreign Secretary continuously in office under successive Ministers if he is not a. strong party man. But failing that it seems that more and more Mr Fraser must neglect either domestic politics or Empire and world affairs. If he attempts to do full justice to both he will probably overwork and end by doing justice to neither.