P.S.A. “Rights”

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30831, 17 August 1965, Page 14

P.S.A. “Rights”

Whether the executive of the Public Service Association has a “ right ” to issue a statement opposing New Zealand intervention in Vietnam is doubtful; what the statement achieved, either for the morale of public servants or for the moulding of public opinion on this issue, is even more doubtful. The association has been more than usually vocal in recent months; and no-one will question its right to be heard on such issues as prison riots, taxation of public servants, or departmental buildings considered to be earthquake risks. The “ right ” of a public service group to challenge the view of its Minister—as when the Minister of Health proposed that control of mental hospitals should be handed over to hospital boards—is less easily sustained; but “ rigid adherence to the “ tradition that a department is the anonymous agent “ of its Minister is no longer possible ”, as the State Services Commission wryly observes in its annual report.

These things, however, are all, in greater or less degree, matters relevant to the master-servant relationship. The association surely oversteps the mark when it sets itself up as a critic of wider Government policy. “ Serious repercussions could “ result from the Government’s approach to the eco- “ nomic problems confronting New Zealand ”, said the association’s president, Mr W. E. B. Tucker, at the annual conference of the association. Many will agree with this statement; but it is not the function of the Public Service Association to decide national policy.

The Vietnam issue, even further removed from the association's proper concern of employeremployee relationships, demonstrated the unwisdom of the association’s involvement in politics. It was apparent that the association’s statement in Vietnam did not represent the views of all members; and a similar division must be expected on almost any political issue. Although a remit calling on the executive to confine itself to association matters and to leave politics alone was defeated, the statement evidently rankles still with some delegates. It has certainly done nothing to promote unity in the association or to improve the standing of the service in the eyes of the public. This can hardly fail to detract from the association’s authority to speak, either to the Government or to the public, on matters which are more properly the concern of the association and its members.