THE STRENGTH OF THE CABINET.

Taranaki Daily News, 10 December 1931, Page 4

THE STRENGTH OF THE CABINET.

■Rumour has it that New Zealand may soon have fourteen Ministers of the Crown instead of ten. Whether there is any real foundation for the suggestion it is impossible to say, but it as to /be hoped the Prime Minister and his colleagues have no intention of entertaining the idea. The reduction of the number of Ministers on the formation of the Coalition Government was ■welcomed by the country as an earnest of the political leaders’ desire to promote economy in every possible way. ■The opinion of the country undoubtedly was, and still is, that economy measures must go a great deal farther than the mere reduction of wages in the Public Service. Men outside Parliament who are experienced in the conduct of business on a large scale have formed the idea that the organisation required to manage the affairs of the country has become altogether too large and costly. There are many people who think that departments of comparatively recent growth might be scrapped and that some of the minor departments might be amalgamated with others ■without any loss of efficiency. If these ideas are justified, then there is surely no excuse for the appointment of additional Ministers. In times gone by the main argument in favour of a large Cabinet was that each Minister had to give his attention to a multiplicity of departments and among the lot of them he was liable to be overworked. Times ■have changed. The Railways Board has lifted a large share of the burden formerly borne by the Minister of Railways; the drastic curtailment of public works is relieving the Minister holding that portfolio of many anxieties; the work of the lending departments should now be a great deal easier to manage than it was a few years ago; there is a number of minor departments whose activities are necessarily very greatly restricted. Moreover, in view of the need for economy Ministers are no longer expected to give their time to attendance at all sorts of public functions. It is true that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister in charge of Unemployment must face hard tasks and live laborious days, but an increase in the personnel of the Cabinet would afford them little relief. It is equally true that such portfolios as Agriculture, Lands, Education, Health, Post and Telegraph, Native Affairs and Internal Affairs make considerable demands upon their holders. • But if each of those mentioned were entrusted to a separate Minister the present membership of the ■Cabinet would be just large enough to cope with them, and most of the ten Ministers thus occupied would be under no great hardship if they had also to exercise supervision over some of the State’s less important undertakings. ■The strength of the Cabinet probably ■whs not mentioned anywhere during the election campaign, so that the Government’s mandate from the country cannot be said to cover an increase. What the electors have authorised the Government to do is to make every possible effort to ensure economy in the national administration. There would be

general disappointment, and probably bitter resentment, if the Government were so unwise as to 1 add even a few thousands of pounds to the cost of administration by an increase in the personnel of the Cabinet.