STALLWORTHY INCIDENT

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 127, 1 July 1929, Page 6

STALLWORTHY INCIDENT

Sir Josoph Ward as Prime Minister has found it necessary to make public what , reads like a very proper "disciplining" of his Minister of Health, Mr Stallworthy. That gentleman, speaking in Auckland, .seems to have conceived the idea that it was his duty to forecast the Government's programme — to anticipate the Governor's Speech, as it were. In any case the newspapers reporting his speech represented him as saying that the Government would have to retrench, and desired that "not much" legislation should be passed this session. We need not stay to consider what meaning Mr Stallworthy liad in mind'when he uttered his vague "not much." The point is that his hearers, and press commentators after them, concluded that be had been speaking the mind of the Prime Minister, and doing so with his concurrence, with the result, we are told, that "quite a flutter" Was cau&ed. Almost at once, immediately he became aware of the situation created by his anticipatory Minister of Health, the Prime Minister issued a dementi, which, from its dignified and yet severe nature, must have come as a cold douche to the gentleman thus dealt with. Sir Joseph Ward announced that he had not authorised any such statement to be made, and that if the action predicted in it had been ih contemplation "he would be the one to make the announcement." Obviously, unless the Prime Minister is to be regarded as superseded, or as a sort of negligible fifth wheel, Mr Stallworthy earned the rebuke. This assumes that he was correctly reported. As up to the time of the issue of Sir Joseph Ward's austere but dignified rejoinder klr Stallwortfiy does not seem to have repudiated the accuracy of the reports of his speech — so far as we have been able to discover he has not done so since — the assumption must be that be was accurately reported. In that case no man occupying a Ministerial position was ever more justly l'ebuked. The Prime Minister is responsible for his Government's policv, and of course it should be for him to state it. It is now fair to suggest that Mr Stallworthy when he spoke had not thought of embarrassing his chief, As the speaker himself put it in his speech, he-is inexperienced. Probably he was unconscious of any incongruity, and was honestly surprised when he first saw the Prime Minister 's very proper rebuke. Brief reference to what he alleged was the considered policy of the Government will now be pertinent. One statement as reported was:-.— "I do not mind saying that from the Government's point of view the less legislation we have this session the better we will be pleased." The phrase "I do not mind saying," and the introduction of tlie "We," doubtless led his hearers and the press eommentators to believe that he really was speaking for or with" the concurrence of the Prime Minister, and that he had determined upon a session with as little legislation as possible. TTom this to the assumption that "mark time" represents the policy of the Government is but a short step, and had this been accurate the speaker, unless exceedingly unsophisticated, could hordly have hoped that the Prime Minister would have been pleased at this "spilling of the beans," yet from the eonfidept manner in whioh he spolce he seemed to have had no misgivings. Perhaps he need not be too discouraged at Sir Joseph Ward's prompt repudiation. A neophyte who makes a blunder may profit by it, and devdlop into a wiser and useful Minister later. Tho confidence with which ho made predictions as to what the Government will do ' is after a fashion laughable, although it may bo presumed that Sir Joseph Ward did not lotigh when thoy weve brought to his noticc. It is possible that tho apeaker was misunderstood when he made reference to the need for retvenohmont, but if that is the ense the faot is but another proof of: the blunder he made in adopting the attitude he did. Ho seems to have been regarded as "giving away" a Gavernment policy of retrenehment in the civil service, although having read his speech wa ean find in it no unmistakabla juBtifieation. for that, Yet even Sir Joficph Ward appears to have taken that view, for in his disclaimer. after emphasising the ohvious faot that he alone., is entitled to proolaim the Goverpment policy, whatever it ipayabe, he went.on to cat-egoric-allv deny that any retrenchment attack upon the civil service had been or was contemplated. The in* cident is not without its aspect of humour, but it may have repereussions.