TE AWAMUTU COURIER Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays FRIDAY, 3rd JULY, 1942 THE PEOPLE’S GOVERNMENT

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 65, Issue 5493, 3 July 1942, Page 2

TE AWAMUTU COURIER Printed on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays FRIDAY, 3rd JULY, 1942 THE PEOPLE’S GOVERNMENT

IF the new War Administration could be regarded as the representative of a united Parliament the country would genuinely welcome it; but, unfortunately, it seems early yet to hope for a non-party political organisation Nevertheless, the arrangement contains the foundations for a stronger unity which time alone may help to develop, and for that reason, and to that end, every well-meaning person in New Zealand who places the welfare of country uppermost will restrain criticism and encourage hopeful aspirations. The War Administration in its personnel has added strength and experience to the administrative machine, but though it has gone part way in the blending of representative interests it has not gone far enoughAt this stage of events those “ obvious defects ” to which the Prime Minister referred when he announced the arrangement made by the party leaders with caucus approval stand out more clearly. A dual administration is the most glaring of all the handicaps that are inherent in the scheme. Even Mr Fraser himself risks the danger of being unable to serve, two masters when he attempts the double purpose of presiding over the partisan domestic Cabinet and then holding an even balance when guiding the affairs of the non-party War Cabinet. Mr Holland’s grasp of war expenditure will become closely interwoven in the skein which the Minister of Finance in the other Cabinet unravels- Just how Mr Jones as Minister of Defence, Mi Coates as Minister of the Armed Forces, and Mr Bodkin as Minister of Civil Defence will draw a line in their respective policies and purposes is difficult to imagine. Still more speculative is the plight of Mr Polson when he sets about his Ministry of Primary Production for War Purposes when, in the Domestic Cabinet, Mr Barclay goes his way as Minister of Agriculture. Mr Broadfoot’s task as Minister of National Sendee must of necessity involve the mobilisation and utilisation of the country’s man-power, yet he is confronted by Mr McLagan as Minister of Industrial Man-power, and in the other Cabinet by Mr Webb as Minister of Labour. These are but a few of the “ obvious defects ” in what is a compromise scheme which, so far from strengthening and co-ord-inating the administrative machine, overloads it with top-hamper and makes it cumbersome. Nevertheless, it is a first stage in the get-together which everybody desires, and there are few who have not become thoroughly weary of the bitter partisanship that had developed. All the same, if the real ideal is a blending of interests and purposes, it has yet to be revealed. Nothing has so far been done in the to rid the country of the partisan caucus-room- In fact it is boldly announced that Mr Holland, although a member of the War Administration, is to continue to fill his official role as Leader of the Opposition, and that Mr Fraser will continue to lead the Labour Party. Is not this an anomaly ? The natural conclusion to be drawn is that the War Administration falls far short in party association and keeps alive the old-time and much-condemned party divisions. This surely does not respect the public mood; the desire everywhere is for unity and for united strength. With a real war struggle in hand the country cannot tolerate a political sham-fight any longer. The •whole trouble seems to have been that Mr Fraser found it impossible to shake off a party Cabinet that clung tenaciously to partisan domestic policy, and that war administration must not touch or interfere with such sectional interests as gave birth and growth to party. But every great movement must have a beginning, and it can be that Mr Fraser hopes to gradually lead the moderate elements of both parties into a new-found strength which, in due season, will enable the overthrow of the top-ham-per that now bars the way to unity It implies, if that is really the ultimate aim, that the doors of the separate caucus rooms must close gradually, that the party leaders will steadily infuse the 'spirit of unity in Parliament; that from the top and not from the bottom the country may be guided toward a unified purpose; and that a true national leadership will emerge. In the hope—even the belief —that the compromise arrangement has those ends in view, the country will expectantly await some signs of

fulfilment by the new Cabinet. Within the framework of a national system there can surely be disclosed a national purpose; and that does not admit a sectional spirit, a partisan class, or a dominant section- The national interest is the aggregate- of all that the nation is, and democracy is repre*sentative of all. Party organisations and identities are a poor substitute for the universal ideal which reposes in the belief that government shall be of, by, and for the people. In so fai as the new War Administration moves toward that ideal its every effort will be applauded and encouraged in the electorate. It can lead toward unity in purpose and effort, anji the people will not be slow to respond to national leadership.