RESIGNATION OF MR. HOLLAND

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 31, 31 October 1942, Page 8

RESIGNATION OF MR. HOLLAND

Constitutional Position DR. MAZENGARB REVIEWS LAW AND PROCEDURE

“Whatever anybody may think of the propriety of Mr. Hollands resignation, there can be no escape from the conclusion that, in law, he was bound to resign,” said Dr.- O. C. Mazengarb in an address last night to friends and supporters of the National Party in the Wellington Central electorate. Dr. Mazengarb dealt with legal ami constitutional aspects of Cabinet procedure and said he was greatly concerned about the way in which the law was being flouted, and constitutional principles ignored. "The right place to say these things,” he said, "is here in the constituency represented by the Prime Minister. “We are fast becoming a slovenly democracy submitting to a pernicious bureaucratic control which does not pay proper regard to the rules of decency and good government,” lie said. “I want to make an appeal to you, and through you, for a return to simplicity, order and decency in the conduct of public affairs.” -*'"When. it appeared that the Prime Minister intended to go back upon tl.e earlier decision not to interfere with the coarse of justice, Mr. Holland and his colleagues of necessity bad to consider their position in the Cabinet. No self-respecting man could stay in a, Ministry with’ men who showed that they had not the capacity to control. That was a matter of propriety which had already been much discussed in and out of Parliament. But there was a much bigger question of constitutional law. The plain fact was that under the law and custom of our Constitution, Mr. Holland was bound to resign. It was a well-established rule that whenever a decision was made by Cabinet it was binding upon all Ministers inside or outside of the Cabinet, whatever their individual opinions. That, was called “the doctrine of collective responsibility.” Once a deeison was made by Cabinet on any matter of policy or principle, all Ministers had the choice of two alternatives—either they must support that decision in Parliament and before the country, or leave the Ministry. Tlie rule was clearly stated in all the text-books. - “Anyone, therefore, who suggested that Mr. Holland and his colleagues might have protested against the decision of Cabinet, and voted against it in the House, while still retaining their places in the War Administration, betrayed a gross ignorance of constitutional law and procedure.” Dr. Mazengarb said he was fully aware that at the urgent request of the Prime Minister of England a temporary arrangement was made for a modification of the rule in 1931. If Mr. Eraser had made a similar urgent request on this occasion, there might have been some call upon Mr. Holland to reconsider his intended resignation. The Prime Minister knew for some days of his protest and probable but he made no proposal which would allow Mr. Holland fo remain in the Ministry while voting against the Government. Therefore that possible exception to the rule regarding the collective responsibility of all Ministers need not be considered. Security of Cabinet.

,/f An even more serious position had ‘'arisen following the resignation, and he regretted that the Prime Minister himself had been responsible for a grave breach of constitutional law. When men entered the Cabinet they assumed a new status as Ministers of the Crown. They retained their duties to their constituents and their party,

but they assumed new duties to the King and his representative. Tn their exalted positions they were obliged by oath to maintain .Hie confidential character of their proceedings as Executive Councillors. The rule of secrecy

had always been regarded as so important rind vital that until a few years ngo.no outsider was allowed to enter the Cabinet room while Cabinet was sitting,-votes were rarely taken, note-taking was prohibited, and even the blotting paper was destroyed so that no trace of any Minister’s individual views could reach the outside world.' A Minister who resigned was properly permitted to make a 'public statement in general terms giving reasons for his resignation. But no Minister, whether he resigned or stayed in the Cabinet, was entitled to reveal any of the secrete of the Cabinet room or to say how any other Minister spoke or voted. “In this connexion,” said Dr. Mazengarb, “Mr. Holland's retiring statement was a model of constitutional propriety. But I was amazed to find that the I’rinie Minister committed an unpardonable breach of constitutional law. 1 have searched'in vain to find any record of any similar breach by any of the King's Ministers in New Zealand or in any other British country. “Mr. Fraser opened his breach of the laiv by saying ‘Here are the facte for the .people of New Zealand to judge for themselves,’ and he 1 lien proceeded to give the names of the Ministers present at the Cabinet meeting, the views which were expressed, and the result of the voting.”

This rule of constitutional laiv was said to be based upon the oath of secrecy taken by Cabinet Ministers as members of the Executive Council, the words of Avhich were: “That I will not directly nor indirectly reveal such matters as shall be debated in Council and committed to my secrecy, but that I will in all things be a true and faithful Councillor. So help me God.”

The other reason for the rule was that secrecy was necessary to enable an outspoken discussion in Cabinet among his Excellency's advisers. No Minister of tin’ Crown could safely express, even tentatively, his views upon the many intimate and confidential matters which were discussed in Cabinet, if he were in constant, fear that one of his colleagues might afterward say, “I'll tell what you said last, week or how you voted hi Cabinet on such and such a question." There could be no freedom of debate among Ministers of the Crown if that sort of .thing was permissible! The meeting carried the following motion :—“That this meeting of electors of- AVellington Central congratulates Mr. Holland upon his resignation from the AA r nr Administration rather than support the Government’s interference with the course of justice. It protests against the action of the Prime Minister in seeking to obtain n party advantage by revealing the secrets of the. Cabinet room, thereby breaking the law of th<- Constitution ami causing an unseemly debate in Parliament. It calls upon all public men to observe the rules of propriety and right conduct.”