The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1917. GOVERNMENT RULE.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 July 1917, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1917. GOVERNMENT RULE.

Occasionally, answers to questions in the House of Representatives reveal strongly phases of character in Ministers that are in striking contrast to preconceive! notions. The Minister of Finance (Sir Joseph Ward) gave an illustration of this when a question was asked by Mr. Isitt as to whether, before dealing with ithe six o'clook closing and raclnr aue?-

tions, tlie report of tlie National Efficiency Board on those matters would be placed before the House, Dr. Newman going a step further and suggesting that tlie whole of the reports of the Board should ibe laid on the table, as he thought they would bo very v&lualble to members. No requests could lie more ) devoid of controversy and less harmful than these, but the Minister scented trouble, or saw red, or something went wrong with his thinking cap. At all events lie seemed to assume that the object for which the reports were wanted Mas as a lever for legislation, so lie promptly said the Government was not going to >be dictated to 'by the Efficiency Board. He did not use this phrase as we liave put it, but his remark that the Government was not going to take the recommendations of the (Board unless they agreed that they were good ones, practically expressed the opinion that tlie Board was a nonentity, and inferred that its opinions were of no importance unless tliey coincided with the views of Sir Joseph and his colleagues. There is not any serious fault to be found .with an attitude of this kind, although it was quite unnecessary for the Minister to adopt such a slighting tone without provocation. It stands to reason that recommendations of the (Board are submitted to the Government, tout what fate befalls them is oif little consequence to the members of the 'Board, all of whom, however, have 'been striving hon- [ estly and zealously to carry out the | task entrusted to them. It is in the tail of Sir Joseph's rqply that the sting is to be found, when he remarked: "It might be just as ■well understood that the Government was going to rule. If good advico was given by the Efficiency Board, then the House iwould lie duly informed." This definition of Government rule is so closely allied to autocracy that the difference will foe hard to find. If the Minister's statement is accepted literally, what becomes of the much vaunted principle of government by the people, for the people ? It is not for the people's representatives .to decide whetdier the Board's advice is good or otherwise, but Cabinet will decide for them and only if the advice is good in Ministers' eyes will the House be informed. Evidently sitting at tlie table of the Imperial "War Cabinet lias had its effect on the Minister of Finance, and if he, is going to ride roughshod over the House in this manner and destroy the democratic nature of our Government there will certainly be trouble. But why this gratuitous insult to the Board? Who created this Board? The government. For what purpose? A difficult question to answer, but evidently in the light of the Minister's statements the functions of the Board might as well have been delegated to the police, tlie Country saved a lot of expense and the members of the Board would not have been subjected to an unmerited slight. At the same time it was obvious when the Board was appointed that it had no power and very little chance of doing any real service otherwise than as a gleaner of information that might or might not be of service. It was doubtless intended to form a convenient buffer between malcontents and the Government, but even in this direction it has wasted its time. The incident should serve to entfghten tlie people of the Dominion on Ministerial methods, but it is hardly likely to facilitate the formation of future boards. The House will do well to note this new ministerial attitude which is by no means a flattering testimony to a National Government.