CIVIL SERVICE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 181, 1 August 1936, Page 12

CIVIL SERVICE.

POLITICAL RIGHTS. BILL BEFORE HOUSE. I OPPOSITION CRITICISM. \ SPIRITED DEBATE. , (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Friday. Tho probability of the Government undermining the reputation and status of the Public Service by allowing its members to take an active part in politics and in permitting contributions to be made to any political party from funds raised by service organisations was stressed by members of the Opposition, when tlie Political Disabilities Removal Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to-day. There was nearly a two hours' debate on the Governor-General's Message introducing the .bill, both Opposition and Government members participating in spirited manner. In explaining the provisions of the measure, the Attorney-General, Mr. Mason, said that the bill enabled a civil servant to stand for Parliament without losing his place in the Civil Service. Naturally, his pay would be discontinued during the election campaign, and, if elected, he would be displaced from the service. But otherwise he would be able to return to his job. The bill also repealed section 59 of the Finance Act, 1932. There was a provision which enabled not only civil servants, but industrial organisations and trade unions to decide by ballot to take part in political affairs.

Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo): Does that mean that they can contribute to political funds ?

Mr. Mason: That would be spending money—yes.

Mr. Broadfoot: Any limit?

The Minister: There is no limit expressed, here. The idea is that the majority decide. We thought that it was not for us to decide the limit.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Forbes: Do you expect to get much from it?

The Minister: The right honourable gentleman might enlarge on that at a later stage.

Mr. Coates (National, Kaipara) said that the bill seemed to be regarded with a certain amount of levity by the. Attorney-General, buc it was a most important measure. He understood that it gave full and free political rights to the Civil Service.

Government Members: Why not? Mr. Coates: I say there should be safeguards. Mr. J. Hodgens (Government, Palmerston): They are British subjects. Disposal of Funds. Mr. Coates said that it was essential in the interests of good administration that the Civil Service should be free tnd above any political consideration at ■11.. He contended that if funds which were raised by various associations and guilds were allowed to be devoted to political purposes the service, which the country depended upon, would be Undermined. It was wrong in principle and there was little more than that which was likely to break down the structure of the public service. Such slack methods were reactionary and were leading in the wrong direction and such things would not redound to the credit of the service nor its status. A public servant could be given freedom, but not to the extent that he could defy those in whose service he was engaged.

"We should not make a football of the Civil Service," said Mr. Coates. It was Throng to allow, its funds to be thrown into trades hall funds or national funds. It was essential for the proper conduct of the country's affairs that the reputation and status of the public service should be safeguarded.

Mr. F. W. Schramm (Government, Auckland East) asked whether the late Government had maintained the status and reputation of the Civil Service when the Finance Act, which gave the right to dismiss any public servant who criticised the Government, was brought down? Members of the Public Service could be dismissed without a hearing. The last Government were the very people who took the rights of civil servants away. "Wo have had the other thing for a long time," said Mr. Schramm, "and now let us try it the other way round and see how its works. It has not worked satisfactorily up to the present."

Vicious Principle. x Mr. Fortes said that.nnder the Finance Act the civil servant had been placed in the same position as that of the private employee. "We didn't dismiss anyone," he said. If a public servant was going to be detrimental to the public he had to he dealt with. "It's an entirely vicious principle," said Mr. Forbes, criticising the proposal regarding the contribution of funds from organisations. "The great majority of the Public Service are supporters of the Labour party and the Government, and the question was, what would they pay the Labour party for giving them the benefits they would receive ?"

Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) : They won't put it as crudely as that.

Mr. Hocfgens: What did you pay the woolgrowers for the benefits you got?

Mr. Forbes said that if contributions were not made the opinion might be held that the support that was expected from the Public Service had not been forthcoming. Would the making of contributions from the Public Service improve the service? "The moment you ask the Public Service to range themselves behind a political party you are doing a great disservice," he said.

The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr. Parry) asked what was the dividing line between the public classed as State employees and other employees of the nation ?

Mr: Forbes: Would you want a magistrate to take part in a political rally, or a judge? Certain Concessions. Mr. Parry said that it seemed that if members of the Public "Service received certain concessions, then they were granted to prevent them from exercifing their civil rights. The tendency in the world to-day was for a oreater number of people to become civil servants, and the day might come when the great majority of the people were in that classification.

Mr. S. G. Smith .(National, New Plymouth) said that tliere were very few '•ivil servants who,desired to stand for

fPsrM gment., In Motueka workmen had protests! ajsalnst certain conditions, and they had to submit. Mr. Poison: Or be "sacked." Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (National, Ttiecarton) : t did the Auckland Builders and General Labourers' Union say? Mr. Poison said that it was possible that a new Government, miirlit sweep out the entire Public Service because of the action taken by the Public Service during a campaign. In the United States, thousands lost their jobs when a change of Government occurred. Mr. J. A. Lee (Government, Grey Lynn) said that there was an extraordinary threat in Mr. Poison's speech. He suggested that if the Public Service was given democratic! privileges and exercised them the Government would dismiss them. "Was it not a threat?" asked Mr. Lee. "Pass the bill, and we will tip out the Public Service when we get an opportunity." Mr. Poison: That's ridiculous. Mr. Lee: Then why use the argument? Used in the way it was used it wasnothing less than a threat. Mr. Forbes: What about Motueka? Mr. Lee: The Minister did not say to the people of Motueka that they should not have the right to stand for Parliament.

ilr. Poison: Xasty pill, Motueka, isn't it?

Pertinent Query. Mr. H. J. Holyoake (National, Motueka) asked if there was a member of the Public Service who had wanted to stand for Parliament and been prevented.

Dr. D. G. McMillan (Government, Dunedin West) : Yes, I know one.

Mr. Holyoake: I have not heard any of the older members of the Government sav ves.

The Prime Minister, Mr. Savage: I will say yes. It is never too late.

Mr. Holyoake said he had not known of a man who had been refused and who had not got his job back if defeated. He referred to the recent trip to Motueka made by the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Semple. When addressing the men the Minister had said, "You shall not speak; you shall not think; you shall have no opinions."

Mr. A. S. Richards (Government, Roskill) said that liberty and freedom were the arguments of the Opposition. They feared to give undue freedom however to the public servants as it might destroy their efficiency and service. Contentment would not come to the Civil Service if the whip of fear were held over its members when they asked for the ordinary rights of citizenship. He referred to the Motueka by-election, and said that a promise had been made of an extra sixpence a case to the fruit exporters if a Government candidate, was returned. " Something New." Mr. Holyoake: What is this all •about? It is new. Mr. Richards referred to clause 59 of the Finance Act, 1932, as the most cowardly "piece of legislation ever placed on the Statute Book. The Chairman, Mr. E. J. Howard: You must withdraw that. Mr. Richards withdrew and substituted the word "unjust." The old enactment, he said, divided the people into two groups. Chorus from the Opposition benches: The loyal and the disloyal.

Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (National Riccarton) said that his opinion was that the Civil Servants would reject the bill if they were asked to vote on it. They had superannuation and many other privileges. The bill was reported back to the House and read a first time.