The Press SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1953. Dr. Bogle And Mr Holland

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 26971, 21 February 1953, Page 6

The Press SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1953. Dr. Bogle And Mr Holland

It must be admitted that Dr. A. G. Bogle, director of the Dominion Physical Laboratory, was, at best, indiscreet in his remarks about the Government at the annual conference of the New Zealand Institution of Engineers. It is not for a prominent public servant, whatever he may think, to say publicly that a government has no appreciation of the real value of scientific services and that the government’s attitude to scientific services was the same as towards social security—it was “ stuck with it and could not get “ rid of it ”. It is most improper for any senior officer of the Public Service to mix publicly in politics,

either to praise or to blame the party in power. That is not in the interest of good government, and it is bad for the Public Service as a whole, which serves best and profits best the further it is removed from party politics. The most charitable assumption is that Dr. Bogle did not realise that his remarks would be published. In any case they hardly warranted the fuss they have caused. Mr Holland snapped back testily (though he is not required to answer, and does not invariably answer criticisms of the Government). Mr Holland quite properly §aid that it was not for Dr. Bogle but for the Government to decide how much the State should spend on any activity and that the reference to social security was mischievous (which it was). But Mr Holland was also indiscreet when he

added the seeming threat that “ the “remarks attributed to him as a “ civil servant are so extraordinary “ that I have no doubt the Minister “in charge of his department will “ give him an opportunity of making “an explanation”. The more that was said the worse the incident became. The Public Service Association and the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants rushed, presumably uninvited, to the defence of Dr. Bogle. The former distorted the case when it said that “in democratic countries it is not a “ crime to hold an opinion which is “not favourable to the Govern-

“ ment There was no suggestion of a crime, and Dr. Bogie’s offence, was .lot that of an individual making a legitimate criticism but of

a high-ranking public servant giving his criticism the authority of his position. Dr. Bogle did not speak as a doctor of philosophy or a i bachelor of engineering, which are * his personal qualifications, but as an administrator who, it might be assumed, really knew something of • the Government’s attitude, which was an abuse of his position. Mr Holland did nothing to make matters better when he replied indignantly to the Public Service Association, not only describing Dr. Bogie’s remarks as “ outrageous ” (an opinion he was free to form), but also by accusing Dr. Bogle of malice (an imputation he was not entitled to make). Mr Holland also changed his ground by saying that while Dr. Bogle considered himself free to make such a statement Mr Holland was free stoutly to deny it. Mr Holland in his first statement went beyond “-stout denial ” to wh&t looked like a threat. If he had not meant to threaten he should have said so. It is to be hoped that this fc? the end of an unedifying business. Dr. Bogle is presumably a useful public servant whose career should 1 not be endangered by magnifying an ; impropriety into a political issue. 1 Nor does such a controversy do ’ anything to help the proper < administration of the country’s 1 affairs, unless as a warning to public ■ servants and politicians to keep < better control of their- tongues.