UNDER-SECRETARIES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 186, 7 August 1936, Page 8

UNDER-SECRETARIES

AID FOR MINISTERS GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSAL OPPOSITION CRITICISM (Fur Press Association! WELLINGTON, Aug. 6. In the House of Representatives this afternoon Hon. M. J. Savage h moved the second reading of the c j Civil List Amendment Bill. He said d the Bill provided for the appoinment 4 of under-secretaries and where there n was a job to do it would be clone at >_ once and the only way to do it was to get assistance from some member •_ qualified to give it. a Sir A. Ransom (Opp., Fahiatua) L t said the last Government and pren vious Governments had carried on s and he said that where a Minister alv lowed functions of his office to get ■- out of his own hands he lost a cer- •- tain amount of his control. He knew y it meant hard work but a Minister i- should have a grasp of all the details of his department. The appointment | of under-secretaries also meant that [ J a larger number of persons would have access to secret, documents and the under-secretaries would not have the responsibilities of Ministers. The Prime Minister had not explained why it was necessary to introduce the new departure at the present stage of tne country’s history. He wondered what would be the position of the heads of departments with another person coming between them and (heir Minister. He did not think this should be. It was also another evidence of extravagance as far as the e present Government was concerned. It e would tend, Sir Alfred said, to make t politics a profession and a member n would not be expected do any other v worlc. He asked if the appointments s of under-secretaries were to be made by the Prime Minister or by the caucus of the party? Were the undersecretaries to be provided with a private secretary and a typist? He believed it was a wasteful extravagance and would lead to inefficient work. Would the under-secretaries receive deputations and make recomrnenda- ! tions to the Ministers and would they handle correspondence? Also, would | they have a scat at Uv Cabinet table? | He could not see how the innovation would lead to better government and 1 , thought the Bill represented a weak- i ness and was a step backward instead { of forward. Not to Placate Supporters Hon. P. Fraser said the spirit displayed by Sir Alfred Ransom was not [ worthy of him. The Bill should be [ considered on its merits and it should I not be suggested that, the Bill was brought forward to placate his supporters who could not be made Cabinet Ministers. Ever since he had been in the House he had heard Ministers saying that, they needed assistance and the growing duties of the Government meant the duties had to be delegated to under-secretaries as was I done in Great Britain. It was foolish for anybody to say that in a growing 'country things should remain static I and should not move forward. Certain secret documents had to pass through the hands of private secre- [ taries and departmental officials but he knew of no instance of the trust I being abused and every member of c- i the House was just as concerned with n his own integrity as a public servant. 1- He thought there was room for retd organisation of the work done by lhe ie heads of departments, Ministers, and d others and any change could only be -■ experimental. Regarding the appointL- ment of under-secretaries, he was certain that if he wanted assistance he > | was going to say with whom he was '6 going to work. Lv Mr. S. G. Smith (Opp., New Plymouth) said that Mr. Fraser had not ie justified lhe Bill. He said that in a Minister’s office there were routine ie matters that could well be attended 1S to by a junior clerk and did not need >d an under-secretary at £6OO yearly to Ds attend to. He did not think the present. move would justify the expense ;n and said that if the Ministers had too much to do more Ministers should 1(1 be appointed instead of a “half-pie” D ' system of under-secretaries. Mr. H. G. S. Kyle (Opp.. Riccar- ’ ton) said there was a danger of un--0 der-secretaries coming into conflict with their Ministers or with the Government. He suggested that if the present Cabinet Ministers were not: capable of carrying out their duties there should be a reshuffle. Hon. A. Hamilton (Opp.. Wallace) was sure that the new system would ir cause confusion. ] e Mr. A. S. Richards (Government, )n Roskill) said the aim of the Bill was w to relieve Ministers of minor matters jy but in ail cases the final decision vv would rest with the Minister, so he Jo could see no room where slackness n- could creep in. al Mr. W. P. Endean (Opp., Parnell) [o said the Government was just heap•a ing un expense and the position in >n New Zealand was not comparable >n with that of Britain. iy ill Mr. Savage Replies Mr. Savage, in reply, said the Government was undertaking a housebuilding 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 £450. An under-secretary would receive £6OO and as it was proposed at present to appoint only one under-ses-re-tary the cost would be £l5O. The Government had set out to do ’ O-r.e-in thing not stick in the mud, and he 3f thought that all would agree that i- something had been done. y- The second reading was challenged m but was carried by 43 to 13 and the ,o House went into Committee and the [y Short Title was still under discussion (g when progress was reported.