CIVIL SERVANTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 184, 5 August 1936, Page 12

CIVIL SERVANTS.

BILL BEFORE HOUSE.

| REMOVING DISABILITIES. SECOND READING DEBATE, (By Telegraph.-—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. Many of the arguments used in the House of Representatives last Friday were repeated to-day when the second reading debate oil the Political Disabilities Removal Bill was moved by the Prime Minister, Mr. Savage. Refer ring to section 59 of the Finance Act, 1932, the Prime Minister, Mr. Savage, said it would be automatically repealed. Under that section a civil servant did not have the right to do anything that would bring the Government into disrepute, but a Government that deserved to be brought into disrepute could not well take exception to what a civil servant might say. It seemed to him- that the main principle involved in the bill was that any individual or association of individuals in the Public Sor- \ ice or outside of it should have ordinary civil rights, and he did not think that the House could do anything less than that.

He, Mr. Savage, saw 110 reason why funds of unions or associations should not be used for political purposes. He had sufficient faith in civil servants to believe they would use their political lights just as intelligently as any other person.

Not So Simple. Ihe Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Sorbes, said the bill was not as simple as the Prime Minister made out. He claimed that an extra duty was imposed on civil servants, that of carrying out then duties impartially and not ranging themselves with one side or the other! In the past when a civil servant wished to stand for Parliament there was never any difficulty if by doing so he did not cause some disorganisation in the Department in which he was employed. In Great Britain a civil servant who wished to stand for Parliament must resign his office, and that principle was recognised as a sound one.

With regard to section 59 of the Finance Act, Mr. Forbes said he had no objection to it being repealed now, but in 1932 there was a good deal of unrest and disorder and the provision was necessary.

"Here is a case in which the .boss says, 'I'm going to give you the liberty subscribing to my political fund,'" said Mr. Forbes, referring to the provision in the bill that associations of civil servants or other workers may use their funds for political objects. * "In this case," he added, "I think the word 'may' can certainly be read as 'shall.' The very fact that the employers of the civil servants put in this provision means that those employers expect to get party funds."

The debate was interrupted by tlie dinner adjournment.