AID FOR MINISTERS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 18087, 7 August 1936, Page 9

AID FOR MINISTERS

NEW POLICY ATTACKED EXTRAVAGANCE AL LEG ED POLITICS AS PROFESSION (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night.

In the House of Representatives today. the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage moved the second reading of the Civil List Amendment Bill. He said the biu provided for the appointment of under-secretaries. Where there was a job to do it would be done at once, and the only way to do it was to get assistance from some member qualified to give it.

Sir Alfred Ransom (Nat., Fahiatua; said that the last Government and previous Governments had carried on. Where a - Minister allowed tire functions of his office to get out of his own hands, he lost a certain amount of his control. The speaker knew it meant ■ hard tvork, but a -Minister should have a grasp of all the details of his department. The appointment of under-secretaries also meant that a larger number of persons would have access to secret documents, and undersecretaries would not have the responsibilities of Ministers.

The Prime Minister had not explained why it was necessary to introduce a new. departure at the present stage of the .country’s history. He wondered what would be the position of the heads of departments with another person coming between them and their Minister. He did not think this should be. It. was also another evidence of extravagance so far as the present Government was concerned, ll would tend, the speaker said, to make politics a profession, and a member would not be expected to do any otherwork. TRUST NOT ABUSED

Continuing, Sir Alfred asked if the appointments of under-secretaries were to be made by the Prime Minister or by a caucus of the party. Were under-secretaries to be provided with a private secretary and typist? Hr believed it was wasteful extravagance, and would lead to inefficient work. Would under-secretaries receive deputations and make recommendations to Ministers, and would they handle correspondence? Would they have a seal at the Cabinet table? He could not see how the innovation would lend to better government. lie thought the bill represented weaknesses and was a step backward instead of forward.

The Hon. P. Fraser said the spirit displayed bv Sir Alfred Ramson was not worthy of him. The bill should, be considered on its merits and it should not be suggested that the bill was brought forward to placate Government supporters who could not be made Cabinet Ministers. Ever since the speaker had been in the House he had heard Ministers saving that they needed assistance, and the growing duties of the Government had to be delegated to under-secretaries, as was done in Great Britain. It was foolish for anybody to say that in a growing country things shouj.d remain static, and should’nbt move forward. Certain secret documents had to pass through the h(tnds of private secretaries and departmental .officials, but he knew no instance of the trust being abused', and every member of the. House was .just .as concerned with his own integrity as a public servant.

ROOM FOR REORGANISATION He thought there .was room for a reorganisation of the work done by the heads of departments, Ministers and others, and any change could only lie experimental. ‘Regarding! the appointment of under-secretaries, the speaker was certain that if he wanted assistance he was going to say with whom he was going to work. Mr. S. G. Smith (Nat., New Plymouth) said that Mr. Fraser had not justified the bill. He said tluU in I lie Ministers’ offices were routine matters that could well be attended to by a junior clerk, and did not need an undersecretary at £6OO a year to attend to. He did iiot think the present move would justify the expense. If Ministers had too much’ to do more Ministers should be appointed instead of the “half-pic” system of under-secretaries.

Mr. 11. S. Si Kyle (Nat., Riccarton) said there was a danger of undcr-sccrc-tarios coming into conflict with their Ministers or with the Government. He suggested that if the present Cabinet Ministers were not capable of carrying out <heir duties there should lie a reshuffle.

The Hon. A. Hamilton (Nat., Wallace) said he was sure the system would cause confusion. He thought there should bo a-limit to 1 lie number of under-secre-taries. He also contended that there should be a member of the native race in the Ministry.

Mr. A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskill) said (he aim of the bill was li*relieve Ministers of minor matters, but in all cases the final decision would rest with the Minister. so he could see no room where slackness could creep in. HEAPING UP EXPENSE Mr. W. J. Endean (Nat., Parnell) said the Government was just, heaping up expense, and the position in New Zealand was not- comparable with that of Britain. Mr. Savage, in reply, said the Government was undertaking a house-building scheme, and a man of vision and energy would be required. He would be an under-secretary. Referring to the allegations of expense, Mr. Savage said that at present a member of Parliament received f’4so. An under-secretary would receive £6OO and as it was proposed at present 1o appoint only one under-secretary, the cost would be £l5O. The Government had set out to do something, not to stickin the mud, and he thought all would agree that something had been done. The second reading was challenged, but was carried by 43 votes to 13, and the House went into committee. The short title was under discussion when progress was reported.