The Press FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1950. Public Servants And Politics

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26122, 26 May 1950, Page 6

The Press FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1950. Public Servants And Politics

Everything we said yesterday about the political nastiness of dragging Government departmental officials into political controversies applies even more forcefully to Mr Fraser’s comments on the Prime Minister’s review of the Public Accounts than to the comments of Mr Nash. Mr Fraser conjured up a harrowing picture of the “ terrible ordeal ” of Treasury officials required to prepare the summary of the accounts in a new way. Civil servants may be less horrified by change, or the thought of change, than Mr Fraser believes. But they had no reason to be horrified, or even concerned, ’ over this change; for the form in which the accounts are issued for public information is the responsibilitv of the Finance Minister and the Finance Minister alone. There is something a little sinister in these ; attempts to make Treasury and Audit Department officials parties to Government policy, especially as both Mr Fraser and Mr Nash showed that they were unsure of their ground and left themselves loopholes of escape should they be proved wrong. Mr Nash qualified his insinuation of Treasury and Audit Department connivance by using the word “apparently”; Mr Fraser qualified his implied criticism of the Auditor-General’s acquiescence with the significant words, “if he did acquiesce ”, and 1 his uncalled-for sympathy with the | Treasury officers in their “ terrible “ordeal” (of being asked to agree .to a change) with the saving ' phrase, “if they did agree ”, Mr ■ Nash and Mr Fraser know that offiI cers of the Treasury take orders I from their Minister just as do those iof any other department—except' i the Auditor-General, who can be j l relied upon to draw attention, at ; I the proper time and in the proper place, to any irregularities in Government financial administration | and accounting. The Labour Gov- | ernment on many occasions disj agreed with the permanent officials

of Government departments and ignored their advice. It also suffered on many occasions from the disclosure by the Auditor-General of weaknesses and irregularities in its administration. It is so difficult to find any other reason for this attempt to embroil public servants in public controversy that Mr Nash and Mr Fraser will have only themselves to blame if the public concludes they are actuated by motives no loftier than petty spite.