PETITION FAILS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 68, 21 March 1935, Page 10

PETITION FAILS.

CIVIL SERVANT'S DISMISSAL. AUCKLAND CASE DISCUSSED, (By Telegraph. —Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. "No recommendation to make" was the finding returned by the Public Petitions Committee, to the House of Representatives yesterday on the petition of H. Barnes, of Auckland, who asked for compensation for life alleged wrongful dismissal from the Public Service. Mr. A. S. Richards, who presented the petition, expressed disappointment with the decision. He said that although the punishment meted out was no doubt in accordance with Public Service regulations, the penalty of dismissal was out of proportion to the offence. Barnes was in the employ of the Land and Survey Department at Auckland when, at the end of July, 1932, he was visited by Mr. Miller, general secretary of the Public Service Association. Air. Miller told Barnes to go at once to Wellington to see the Public Service Commissioner. Barnes asked why he should do so. It would be admitted he committed a slight breach of conduct in asking the question, but he was anxious to know what charges were being made against him. Barnes had written oversea in connection with the Auckland disturbances. Mr. Miller also said that Barnes' case was the worst "political case" in New Zealand. Air. Miller said that he had also heard that during the general election campaign Barnes had asked a Coalition candidate a couple of awkward questions. Barnes said he had a perfect right to ask questions, but Mr. Miller replied, "You might ask them in a judicious manner." Air. Aliller left for Wellington on July 2S and two days later Barnes received a telegram from the Public Service Commissioner, demanding his transference to New Plymouth, where lie was tohl to report on August 10. Barnes was curious about that, as he had been told previously by a senior officer that the New Plymouth office was over-staffed. He asked what the effect would be on his classification. He did not definitely refuse to go to New Plymouth but he demurred. He was dismissed on August S. In the opinion of Air. Richards the committee had been influenced by the hesitancy shown by Barnes. He deserved another chance. The committee might have given more consideration to the impulsiveness of youth. Air. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) said that petitioner had been the victim of a gross injustice. View of Committee. The accuracy of some of the statements made by Air. Richards was questioned by the acting Chairman of the Committee, Air. J. A. Alaepherson (Government. Oamaru), who said that petitioner had not been dismissed on the Bth as stated, but on the 15th. Petitioner had had every opportunity to prove his ease before the committee, which, on the evidence before it, could come to no conclusion other than that it I had no recommendation to make. He had been ordered to report to New Plymouth oil the Bth, but had licit done so on the following day. He had been asked to go to Wellington to meet the

I Public Service Commissioner, and his reply had been that expense would be involved. However, it was common knowledge among public servants that I the Department provided those expenses. 1 Mr. Richards: re was not so in this ease. _ : Mr. Maepherson: It is a standing rule that any expenses be paid by the Department. Mr. Parry: .Was Barnes entitled to ask for expenses r Mr. Maepherson: He could have. Mr. Richards: He was told he would have (o refund them. Mr. Maepherson said that petitioner had been advised by his superior officer in Auckland that failure to carry out the order of the Commissioner would mean dismissal. He decided not to report to New Plymouth or to go to Wellington, and therefore he practically dismissed himself. Mr. Maepherson added that the committee. had given 110 consideration to any political activities of petitioner, arid it had been assured by the Commissioner that he had had 110 knowledge of any such activities at that time. Having regard to all the evidence, Mr. Maepherson said, there was no harshness shown by the committee. Petitioner, who appeared to be highly temperamental, had had the matter in his own hands, and had largely .taken it into his own hands. He had refused to take the advice of his superior officer, whereby he could have had the matter satisfactorily adjusted to himself and all others concerned. The report was tabled.