Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1936. A LARGER CABINET

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19025, 27 May 1936, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1936. A LARGER CABINET

The Prime Minister appears to have displayed unnecessary resentment at recent speculation regarding probable increases and changes in the personnel of the Cabinet. The obvious truth is that the Cabinet must be enlarged in consequence of the policy of the Government, and any enlargement must involve some redistribution of portfolios. It was Mr. Savage who first directed attention to the excessive strain already placed upon some Min istors and referred to the advisability of increasing the numerical strength of the Cabinet, and in these circumstances lobby conjecture was inevitable. It- would seem, however, that in one direction or another the comment was of an unpalatable nature. There is no valid reason why more Ministers should not be appointed, but several very cogent arguments in favour of a better distribution of work and responsibility. It is true that the present Cabinet consists of 13 members, whereas the Coalition managed to divide the work among only ten. On the other hand, the United Government elevated no fewer than 14 members of its comparatively small party to Ministerial office. The size of the Cabinet should depend upon the amount of work to be done and the capacity of its members for doing it. If it is found that the present Ministry is not large enough to carry out the Government's programme —and that is obvious, even if it had not been admitted by the Printo Minister—then the sooner the position is remedied the better for all concerned. The initial difficulty arises from the fact that present-day Governments arc expected to do an infinite variety of work that was never contemplated when the present Parliamentary system was dovised. Long before a Labour Government was even thought of the State had extended its activities in so many different directions that it had become involved in all the complications and intricacies that are inseparable from the administration of business and commercial concerns. Unfortunately, perhaps, members of Parliament are not elected for their business ability or commercial experience, but because of the policy they advocate or support. In other words, Par liament is elected for one purpose and expected to serve another, and it is seldom that it shows- the required adaptability. In the past, the diffl cmlty was overcome to some extent by recruiting men with particular quali fientions and special training to assist in the complex task of governmentin short, by the appointment, of nnichridiculed boards. Now, however, the boards have been summarily dismissed and, at the same time, the Government, by its policy, has great ly increased the amount of technical and highly -skilled work which it has to perform. It is little wonder, then, that Ministers are looking for some relief from their onerous burdens. The Minister of Transport, for instance, has elected to take upon his own shoulders the whole of the work previously carried out by tho Transport Co-ordination Board, in addition to his heavy responsibility for putting an ambitious public works programme into operation. The Minister of Railways, with no previous experience, is

himself assuming the work formerly done by the specially qualified members of the Railways Board, and, in addition, is to launch a scheme for the development of industries and control other minor departments. On top of the. many duties involved in. the administration of the new industrial legislation, the Minister of Labour is to assume charge of the work which previously had been entrusted to the Unemployment Board. Finally, the Minister of Finance, who in that capacity alone would seem to have more than a full-time job, is to be responsible for tho launching of the now State marketing scheme and is to take over the duties which hitherto devolved on the specially selected Executive Commission of Agriculture. It may be said that the Ministers will be guided by tho hends of their respective departments —it is inconceivable that in many respects they will not have to rely upon them entirely —but this surely involves a delegation of power, if not of responsibility, and if powers are to bo delegated at all then the public would prefer that they should be entrusted to boards rather than to a bureauracy of civil servants. The whole question seems to resolve itself into the position that so long ns tho State operates in so many different spheres, each calling for specialised knowledge, the assistance of outside expert advice, whether in the shape of boards or otherwise, cannot be avoided. It is no reflection on the present Ministers to say that the tasks they have assumed are beyond them, for the truth is that they could not adequately be performed by the most capable men in the country even though they had a life-time of experience behind them. Thus it may be found that an increase in the size of the Cabinet will not by any means overcome the Government’s problems; it may act as a palliative, but, on the other hand, it may only complicate the position. In the meantime, speculation as to probable changes will inovitablv continue, Mr. Savage’s denials notwithstanding, and since Mr. Nash is shortly to leave the Dominion, for the best part of a year it can hardly be expected that conjecture should not embrace the allimportant. portfolio of Finance.