Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

REPATRIATION

APPOINTMENT OF FOUR MINISTERS "A RIDICULOUS ABSURDITV" AN OUTSIDE MAN SUGGESTED The most interesting discussion which occurred at 1 the meeting of the Advisory Board of Patriotic Societies yesterday ,ivas.that affecting tho important problem of repatriation, which delegates stated had been urged Upon the consideration of the Government for tho past two years without • any effect. . . . The chairman -(.Mr. L. O. H. Tripp;, in discussing the constitution of the .nrcposed Repatriation Board, said that the appointment of four Ministers' would bo. fatal to any scheme. There should be only one Minister, but he understood there had been differences in the Cabinet, and they were being overcome by the appointment of four Ministers, in his opinion the best course to pursue would be for the Government to go outside the Cabinet altogether, and appoint ft Minister for Repatriation, and so get away from politics complete.}-. _ The Hon. J. T. Paul (DunMm) said the position had arisen through a family squabble," but the same difficulty would arise if Mr. Tripp's idea were adopted-they would .all want to know tho colour of the man. , . ' Mr. Tripp said the man he would, select would be a business man who had never had anything to do with politics. He-could pick a man with no colour. Mr. Paul said it was a tremendously serious matter for the country. The appointment of four Ministers was absolutely fatal to the scheme, for it would bo found that they Would all be rushing off to consult their colleagues. , • Mr. Tripp said.the Government should get tho best man they could, one with considerable commercial knowledge aW with a knowledge of the land, who would be outside of and not responsible to the. Government. This course had been fol-lowed-in England. , Mr. Paul said the apppintmettt of such a man as Director of Repatriation might work. The appointment of four Ministers was a ridiculous absurdity. Mr. J. .7. Dougal (Christchurch) said they ought to ascertain first what the Government intended to do. lno tjm told them nothing. ~ , Mr. Kirkwood (Taranaki) pointed out a clause in the Bill which showed that the whole business could , be' done by 'regulation, and they had no regulations before them. . , , Mr. Paul said that the idea was that there should be two Reform and two Liberal Ministers. The hian who knew most about the subject was the Minister in charge of the Bill. He had ideas on the matter; but it was r* good going to him,'as his Department was not going to administer the Act, and they could not consult the other four Ministers who were to be appointed to the bpard. _ Mr. ICirkwood was firmly of the opinion that they should protest against the principle of administration by regulation. Mr'-V. Lamer'stated that as-tho am,was only a skeleton one-and no one could say what its, flesh ffould be likewhy not condemn it altogether,Mr; Dougal maintained that if a member of the Executive were appointed to the board he'should bo tho Minister ot Repatriation. ' He protested against the scandalous way in which the question of repatriation was being treated. Mr. Paul pointed out that tne board must co-ordinate with tho Governmenti Re dissented from the view that. they should have to go outside tho Government for a Minister. It might ,be wis6 to do so- in the case of a director, Tho latter should not be a military vnan. Mr. Lamer: For heaven's sake don't let us have a military,man! " ■■ • Mr. Hope Gibbons said that the only 'man.i with anv strength of character in the Government was' the Minister, of DeMr! Paul: And he's not going to be on

the hoard. '•, Mr. Lamer: If he's not goiripr to be, an outside man, let the politicians produce the big man who can handle this big thing. If they've got him, let them show us the man! , , Mr. Paul dissented from the .view that there Were not good business 'then ill the Government. They had some of the best business 4 men. .There was Mr. Arthur Myers-one of the biggest business men'in the country. 'Better say at onco that tha Government had done everything badly, and advocate a general election. . , The chairman thought they snould approve of there being only one Minister 'in charge, and that before being adopted the regulations should be submitted lo the Advisory Board, or,that there should ho a conference of the representatives of the Government, the Advisory Board, and' the New Zealand Returned Soldiers'' Association. , Mr. lamer again asked:'' Why not go outside Ihe Government? . . •' Mr. Paul said that, after nil, Parliament was a representative body, chosen ry the people. Unfortunately it was til the nature of a coalition' that such things, should be: : 'Finally thetboard passed the following resolutions:— (1) That it is emphatically of opinion . that a Minister of. Repatriation should be appointed, and that if .more than one Minister is appoint•ed the result will-be disastrous. (2) That the board respectfully requests that the regulations to bo issued in connection with the Repatriation Act should be first submitted to a conference of the Advisory Board and the New Zealand Returned Soldiers' ■ Association before bejng tin- ' ally framed, the object being that ' the patriotic societies and Returned : Soldiers' Association should work in accord with the Government repntri-

SECOND DIVISION LEAGUE'S VIEWS COMMENT BY THE NATIONAL ; ■ . . PRESIDENT. ! Commenting on»the- Repatriation Bill now before Parliament, Mr. R. Armstrong, national president of the Second Division League, said, that the measure would be a great disappointment to all who had taken an interest in the subject of repatriation. The Bill was really nothing more than an empowering measure, and there was nothing in its provisions that could not. have been intro-

duced into. Parliament two years ago. Because of the statement made by a member of the National Cabinet to tha ] effect that the Minister of Defence had "a scheme up his sleeve," the league had looked forward to Sir James Allen's speech in bringing forward the Bill to indicate in detail the proposals of the , Government. In this the league would bo again disapnoi.rited for, from the Press reports available, the Minister's speech was merelv a resume ■of ithe clauses of the Bill. " It was 1 apparent _ that the work of construction had still to be ' done, and it was greatly to be regretted that Government did not long ago take : the bare powers that they were now asking for under the Bill. The league executive had grave fears that .by the time a sound working scheme was under way it would bo found to be too late to be of rail benefit. However, the present position was what '-hid to be faced, and the great need now was for prompt and welldirected action' by the controlling authority, and success or failure would depend solely upon the energy and capacity of the administration and the careful selection of the personnel of the proposed Department) The league was glad v to note that during tho idebate members of Parliament were practicallv unanimous in condemnation of the proposed Ministerial board of four. Tho league held that the necessary vitality and direct action which aro now more than ever required would not be secured to the Department unless complete _control and responsibility was vested in one Minister. Referring to tho scope of the Bill, Mr. Armstrong said Ihaf in other countries benefits were extended to soldiers' dependants under certain conditions, and as this >vas an empowering matter s6lely the same provision should be included in the Bill, to be used at the discretion of tho Minister in control. The provision for extending the benefits of tho Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act. to men who had not been overseas wos limited to those who were attached to camp on November 12, 1918. and this would cut out men who for various reasons had been discharged prior to that date, and who might want to avail themselves of the benefits of this part of the repatriation scheme. There was really no need for this arbitrary embargo, and it should be eliminated from the Bill.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19181206.2.86

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 61, 6 December 1918, Page 8

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,343

REPATRIATION Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 61, 6 December 1918, Page 8

REPATRIATION Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 61, 6 December 1918, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert