THE MINISTRY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 476, 7 April 1909, Page 6

THE MINISTRY.

The public has been so much occupied with the reconstruction of the Government Departments and the effect that the retrenchment proposals will have upon tho general body of tho Civil Service that it has not had time to ask how far the Government's revolutionary programme should affect the Ministry itself. Ministers were doubtless a little surprised at our suggestion of last week that Sir Habry Atkinson's reduction of his own and his colleagues' salaries is an example worth copying by tho present Government. That such a serious state of affairs as necessitates drastic retrenchment should equally necessitate a little sacrifico on tho part of Ministers is probably a consideration that never dawned on tho modern Liberal' Minister's mind. It may safely be assumed, therefore, that it has never occurred to the Government that the number of Ministers might be reduced. Yet that is a proposition which only requires to be stated to stand forth as feasible and very desirable. When, during last year, thero were signs that the Government was anxious to foster a movement for tho appointment of more Ministers, we instituted some comparisons to show that in proportion to population New Zealand then possessed more Ministers than wore usual or necessary in sane communities. Since that date the number of Ministers has been increased from eight to nine. In New South Wales, with a population half as large again as that .of New Zealand, eight Ministers with portfolios are found quite sufficient to administer' the country's affairs. In Victoria soven Ministers manage tho work of government. If the number of Ministers in Great Britain bore the samo ratio to the population as is tho case in this country, nearly 400. men would attend a meeting of Cabinet. Wo wore told, in reply to these figures, that the ■ population basis was an unsound one for argument upon the size of Ministries. But tho people who defended the agitation for more Ministers have always justified the increase in the cost of government by the increase in the population and the consequent increase in the number and scope of the public Departments, They cannot have thnir cake and eat It too.

In a discussion in the House last session, Mr. Laurenson, in supporting tlio Hon T. Mackenzie's plea for the appointment of extra Ministers,' placed his chief reliance upon the fact that the number of public Departments had greatly increased. It follows, we should think, that now that the Departments have been reduced from 37 to IC, any necessity'that existed for a Ministry of nine members has ceased to exist. But the friends of the Government will doubt--loss find some sort of excuse for justifying the maintenance of a large Ministry. It is their business to find excuses. In the rearrangement of portfolios and Departments there is at least one anomaly that would not appear in a well-ordered organisation of the work of government. The Department of Roads has luccn absorbed by the Public Works Department, of which Mr. R. M'Kenzie is the Ministerial head. But Mr. Hoaa, the Prime Minister has explained, will remain at the head of the roads administration as Minister for Roads. If we know anything of Mr. M'Kenzie, ho is not the kind of man to recognise tho right of anybody, whatever his- title may be, to control a branch of the Public Works Department. There are the elements of a conflict between Messrs. M'Kenzie and Hogg contained in the Prisie Minister's singular readjustment of the roads administration. Before tho new arrangement which is still in process settles down, indeed, we may expect- io find a good deal of friction between Ministers. The wavering of Mii. Millar on the question of railways policy some time back was obviously due to the conflict between his own knowledge of the necessity for a change in the methods of administration and his colleagues' inability to dispense with the old method for party ends. The Government's recognition of the need for economy must greatly strengthen Mr. Millar's hands in asking for his own way. In other matters than finance, too, the railways afford occasions for difference between Mr. Millar and the Prime Minister, and it may safely bo stated as a general rule that the public will prefer Mr. Millar's views on most of tho important points of railways administration to those of Sir Joseph Ward. . .