The Guardian and Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.

Hokitika Guardian, 10 January 1929, Page 4

The Guardian and Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1929. PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT. At tlic meeting of the County Council this week there was the very plain suggestion that the country was hack to the old system of Government by Under-Secretaries. ' It is perhaps, something more than a coincidence when the Liberals came back to power in ]B9l, that the same complaint was made, but at that time Ministers were the complainants. They refused to Ik* dictated to the under-secre-taries and there were stories extant ot some strained scenes at the times. Since then politics have had their changing order, and though we heard a good deal from the late Government about more business in Government and less Government in business, the administrative process drifted hack to the old order, and the rubber stamp method of dealing with the country’s business again manifested itself. It was said very aptly the other day that tne electors had no power to remove under-secretaries or other officials who acted for Ministers, but Ministers could be and were removed when their policy did not meet with the approval of the people. In the case under notice at the County meeting correspondence was under review in which the undersecretary decided on the merits of the case without reference to the Minister, because the official did not consider the circumstances warranted action by the Department. It was very good of the official to bo so considerate for the time of his chief, but before vetoing an important or even unimportant proposal, the Minister responsible to the country for the good Government of his Department should decide the matter, rather than an official who is alone responsible to the Minister. If the official is not going to submit these matters, and the under-secretary has tile power of veto, why the need for a Cabinet at all? A grotesque position presents itself when such a question is put. The official of course would be doing his duty if in presenting any matter to liis chief lie pointed out any circumstances which warranted a negative reply, or for the matter of that, a positive reply, but the final authority should surely be with the Minister and not with a subordinate. It can well he conceived that it is possible for the official to bring bis chief into disrepute, and that is what has happened in this instance. That of course is very unfair to the Minister who may be ignorant of the action taken bv bis clerk without his knowledge and approval, for the reason that the matter was not placed before the head of the Department. Just why the under-secretary should adopt that course is not at all clear. It savours ol’eigotism while at the same time doing something unfair to a Minister not made acquainted with the position. A looseness of control may have grown up of late months owing to the illness of the ex-Ministor, and greater responsibility thrown on the chief cxecutivo officer, hut with the Minister replaced or at all events an actiiig-Ministcr on duty, the over-riding of Ministerial authority should not he attempted without explicit instructions. It is as well the matter has been ventilated for it indicates that there is the need at least for some explanation in the matter unless we arc to assume as the facts indicate that Ministerial authority is being undermined 'if not over-ridden by government by undersecretarv.