The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1936. The Public Service and Politics

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21938, 12 November 1936, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1936. The Public Service and Politics

The decision of the Canterbury branch of the Public Service Association to draw the attention of the Dominion executive of the association to the recent appointment of a Minister’s son to a position in the Department of Labour is one symptom of a widespread uneasiness, not confined to public servants, over the future of the service. The institution in 1912 of commissioner control over all’ except two departments, and the provision of stringent penalties for attempts to use political influence in public service appointments, constitute one of the most beneficial political reforms in the history of New Zealand. On the one hand, the level of political morality has been raised by the removal of a temptation to members of Parliament which, before 1912, they were seldom able to resist. On the other hand, the efficiency of the public service has been increased by the elimination of political influence as a factor in promotion. Perhaps the best testimony to the value of commissioner control is that, after nearly 25 years’ experience of it, the public servants themselves are its strongest supporters. It would be idle to deny that, in the year since the present Government came into power, the statutory basis of the system has been weakened by several enactments. One is the Finance Act (No. 1) of last session, which provides that there shall be two Public Service Commissioners instead of one, that their term of office shall be three years, and that disputes between them shall be settled by a third party appointed by the Government. If commissioner control is to be effective, it is essential that the commissioners should be appointed for long periods and should have security of tenure. Obviously three years is not a long enough term. Moreover, the provision relating to disagreements between the commissioners is a loophole for ministerial interference in the administration of the service. Commissioner control is further weakened by the Post Office Amendment Act, the effect of which is to remove the limited power over appointments and promotions in the Post Office previously held by the commissioners. No member of the Government has been able to show why this measure is necessary or, for that matter, why the Post Office should not be on the same footing as any other department. Finally, there is the injudicious Political Disabilities Removal Act, which confers on public servants the same political freedom as ordinary citizens—a freedom which they did not ask for and which most of them do not want. It is not desirable that public servants in responsible positions should pronounce publicly on political issues and they will, if they are wise, reject the opportunity to do so. But it is the Government’s actions, even more than its enactments, which have aroused uneasiness over the future of the public service. The incident that has attracted most attention is the appointment of Mr C. G. Scrimgeour to be director of commercial broadcasting. The National Broadcasting Service is legally under the control of the Public Service Commissioners. Yet this position was never advertised and there is no evidence that Mr Scrimgeour’s appointment, or the terms of it, were approved by the commissioners. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question in the House of Representatives, said that the commissioners had been “ consulted what their views were he did not state. There is now the matter of Ministers’ relatives being appointed to positions in the service. What the merits of these appointments are we do not lyiow or greatly care. The point is that if Ministers were as anxious as they should be to remain above suspicion and to preserve the morale of the service they would actively discourage the employment of their relatives in departments over which they have control.