PARLIAMENT.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 12, 15 August 1911, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

# HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THURSDAY, AUGUST 10. The House met at 2.30 p.m. THE RAILWAY SERVICE. A petition was read from the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants asking for 10 per cent, increase in wages all round, Is 3d per hour to be paid to casuals, all persons doing shunting work to be paid shunters' wages, a week to be 46 hours, not less than nine hours off between shifts, dismissed servants to be permitted to continue to pay into the Superannuation Fund, and full citizen rights for all railway servants.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM,

Speaking on the Civil Service Reform Bill, which he moved for leave to introduce, Mr Herdman (Wellington North) said New Zealand was behind the times so far as the management of the public service was concerned. There was a considerable amount of discontent existing in various branches of the Civil Service. He considered that there was ample justification for the attitude he had taken up in. regard to reform of the service. The system in Australia of placing the affairs of Civil Servants in the hands of three Commissioners was infinitely better than the state of affairs existing here. The control of large bodies of servants was becoming a science. He had provided in the Bill for a Chief Commissioner and two as-sistant-commissioners outside the service and thoroughly competent business men who shall be appointed by the Governor-in-Council. The Commissioners would assume complete control of the public servants, fix their salaries and arrange promotion. Provision was made for prohibiting servants from canvassing Ministers or members of Parliament under penalty of dismissal. Likewise a similar canvass would disqualify prospective Civil Servants. The fundamental principle of the Bill was that the Commissioners were responsible to Parliament and not to the Ministry solely. Mr Jennings (Taumarunui) said as a democratic principle he would oppose the measure. Commissioners, ho said, were not satisfactory. If members were prepared to surrender their rights as full representatives of the people they bad no right to be in the House. Hon. T. Y. Duncan (Oamaru) said he was opposed to Public Service Commissioners of any shape or form. Mr McLaren (Wellington East) said it was a sham and a pretence of reform to exchange one boss for another. Mr Hogg (Masterton) said he failed to see how the present system of control of the public service could be very much improved. Mr Laurenson (Lyttelton) was sure there were very few appointments made to the public service by political influence. The appointment of a Public Service Board would be a distinct reaction. Mr Ross (Pahiatua) opposed the Bill. Mr Ell (Christchurch South) said that if the affairs of the public service were ' handed over to a Board of Control there would be more discoutent than ever. The debate was adjourned till tomorrow. Mr Hanan (Invercargill) said the system advocated by Mr Herdman for the control of public servants had not been a success in New South Wales, where the service was seething with discontent. He had made inquiries in Australia and had been assured that political and outside influences were used there notwithstanding the Public Service Board, and merit was not always recognised. He would like to see periodical Departmental tests applied right through the Civil Service. Tests were applied in the Post and Telegraph Department and worked very satisfactorily there. Merit and length of service should count in promotions, and the best brains should be available for the tops of Departments. There must be someone who was responsible to Parliament and the people. It would be a violation of democratic principles to establish Commissioners in connection with the public service. Mr Massey (Franklin) said there was no parallel between Railway Commissioners (which he opposed) and Public Service Commissioners. Hon. J. A. Millar had informed the House once that one-seventh of the total population of New Zealand depended on the Government for support. He did not know quite how many people there were in the public service, but a Board of Control consisting of Commissioners was very necessary for controlling the public service of the country. The present principle for Government appointments was far from sound. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. The Wanganui School Site Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. TOWN-PLANNING. Mr Forbes (Hurunui), continuing the debate on the second reading of the Town Planning Bill, said that the Bill was a workable one. and should be proceeded with with the utmost expedition. Town planning meant a certain amount of restraint on the individual in cutting upof land, and there was therefore a great need for preparing a Bill which would be workable in every direction. He suggested that the Government might get an expert to advise local bodies in the direction of town planning. Mr Glover (Auckland Central) supported the Bill, but saw no immediate hurry for placing it on the Statute Book. Mr Ell (Christchurch South) applaud- J ed the objects of the Bill, and urged that the existing powers of local authorities should be widened. At present local authorities were not in a position to exercise control over owners cutting up blocks of city lands. Mr Hanan (Invercargill) held that power should be exercised over local bodies which failed to do their duty. He endorsed the suggestion that power might be given to people to initiate a scheme by referenda vote. Mr Davey {Christchurch East) objected to too much centralisation and said that the Bill savoured too much of it. Mr Graham (Nelson) objected to the proposal that a loan for town-pluming

| purposes could be raised without consent of the ratepayers. The proposal I was most undemocratic Mr Laurenson (Lyttelton) regarded the measure as a step in the right direction. He favored the Government supplying an expert to local bodies for drafting plans for their development. Mr Whitty (Riccarton) said that the Bill either went too far or did not go far enough. There appeared to him to be far too much reference from boards to councils and councils to Gov-ernor-in-Council, and back again. He did not agree with local bodieß buying land for speculative purposes. Hon. G. Fowlds, replying, said he was sure that the Bill was a popular one. He was sorry that objection had been raised to the functions of the Governor in Council. The Govemor-in-Couucil was the Ministers of the Crown acting in conjunction with the Governor. Ministers of the Crown could not hold their positions except by the will of the people. Nothing could be more democratic than that. There must be some authority to give legal sanction to previous acts. The contention that only ratepayers were concerned in the outlay of towns did not need answering. Children were being stunted in their growth for want of open space, and if they were prepared to wait for ratepayers to sanction loans for town-planning their slums would continue to exist. The first consideration of the ratepayers was to get the most rent possible from the miserable persons who occupied- their hovels, and their second consideration was to secure reduction in rates. Rentpayere must have a say in the matter. The giving of votes to householders in connection with the election of mayors and councillors was a mere sham if it could be blocked for want of money. He was sure that if the Bill were carried there would in future be no such things as slums. He approved or the suggestion that an expert should be consulted with regard to the planning of towns. With regard to future cities, he had no objection to making provision for them. The Bill was read a second time. A QUESTION.

Mr Buchanan asked the Government if, in view of cablegrams stating that the Opawa had been prevented from discharging her frozen meat cargo, owing to strikes, they were prepared to do anything in connection with the supply of coal to affected steamers ? Hon. J. A. Millar replied that the would do all possible ia the matter. The House rose at 10.33 p.m. FRIDAY, AUGUST 11. CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. The House met at 2.30 p.m. Hon T. Mackenzie continued the debate on Mr Herdman's motion for leave to introduce a Civil Service Reform Bill. His (the Minister's) experience of the Civil Service was that half the masters were most considerate. Many of the charges made against the present administration of public service were of a nebulous character anc! should be specific. With regard to the 'suggestions of sycophancy and timeservice, he could dispel every one of. them. As far as his experience of Civil Service went, he had not dropped across anything of the description. The service was an honorable and efficent one. He did not entirely believe in promotion by seniority. If a board to control the Civil Service were set up it would be apt to allow the wealthy to have the pull over the rest of the people. Friends of the commissioners would get preference in appointments. Under the present system preference was given to the children of aged people who had no other means of support outside their children.' The greatest possible consideration was extended, as far as the interests of the State allowed, to sick and aged members of the communities.'

Mr J. C. Thomson (Wallace) said that there was, as far as he could see, no picking and choosing between rich and poor in the choice of civil servants. If a board of commissioners were set up the function of the representatives of the people would l be usurped. With regard to classification, he did not believe in promotion by seniority. There must be efficiency. Promotion should go by the way a man used his brains in the public benefit. It was, he admitted impossible to classify brains. Mr J. P. Luke (Wellington Suburbs) said he had never heard of civil servants in his electorate expressing an opinion in favor of a board as against Ministerial control. He hoped the Bill would not pass. Mr G. W. Russell (Avon) said he did not think Mr Herdman had made out a case that would support his arguments. Mr C. A. C. Hardy (Selwyn) interjected that he knew of a case where a candidate, being No. 50 on the examination list, did not get into the service, but No 260 did. Mr Russell said that if that was a fact there should be an inquiry into the matter. Mr Hardy said that it had occurred last month.' Before Parliament passed the Bill it should be satisfied that there was some good reason for it. Hon. D. Buddo said he would not have spoken had it not been for the remarks passed by Mr Hardy. He ventured to think that the member for Selwyn had been misled." If he would write a statement of the case and present it to the Minister a reply would be sent. The statement made was a most damaging one if it was to be understood that any list could be passed over and set aside in the way suggested. He declared that Ministers had nothing to do with classification lists. Mr Hardy explained that the case he referred to was not that of a candidate for admission to the service, but the case of a man who was already in the service and had his place on the classification list. There was great dissatisfaction in the service; it could be heard everywhere. He went on to explain that the man he had referred to was between 50 and 60 on a certain classification list. He saw a certain officer Who explained to him that others higher up could not be passed over. He agreed. Later on he saw the same individual and 1 pointed out that a man 260 or 270 on the list had received preference. The man in question said; "It ii not men; it u thou foltyrt ia

Wellington." That was the position. Hon. T. Mackenzie said that Mr Hardy should state the exact case. He ventured to suggest that nothing of the kind had occurred without good reason Mr Hardy said he was certain of 'his case, and would prove it at the proper time. Mr Stalhvorthy (Kaipara) maintained that there had been absolutely no dissatisfaction expressed by civil servants; therefore there was no necessity for such a measure. Mr Herdman, in reply, twitted Mr Mackenzie with having supported the proposal in 1904. Now he viewed it in a different light. Leave to introduce the Bill was granted and it was read a first time. A despatch was read from the King to the Government conveying to members of the House of Representatives appreciation of their message of congratulation. DEFENCE REGULATIONS. The Defence Foroe regulations were laid on the table. TOWN-PLANNING. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. and went into committee on the Town-plan-ning Bill. Mr James Allen (Bruce) objected to the section providing that, after considering a ~ scheme, the Town-planning Board should report upon it to the Governor-in-Council and make recommendations, nft it provided dual control. He was prepared to trust the Board, and thought reference to the Governor-in-Council should be deleted. Mr A. M. Myers (Auckland East) supported the objection. Mr G. W. Russell (Avon) suggested that the final authority in the matter should be vested in a body answering to the English Local Government Board. I'he Minister might be president of this body. Messrs Davey, Wright, Luke and Witty objected to the power vested in the Governor-in-Council. Hon. G. Fowlds defended the Board. As he proposed it, it answered to the expert officers of the Local Government Board at Home.

Mr G. J. Anderson (Mataura) moved as an amendment, "That the Board, after considering the scheme, might approve it with such modifications as it might think fit."

Hon. 11. McKonzie said that no one in the country had more consideration for the wish of the people than had the Governor-in-Council.

Mr Anderson explained that his unendment tended more towards the protection of smaller towns.

Mr Fowlds interjected that the catch jcry against the Governor-in-Council "Was a futile one. It was a new thing co propose that the final seal of responsibility should be on anyone outside the Ministry. The Governor-in-Council waa i protection for the individual.

Mr Russell said it was not a matter if making a catch cry against the Gov-ernor-in-Conncil, but of fighting for the principle ol local self-government. At what point were the powers of Ministers uo cease, and how far did the powers oi .he people go? He stood for local selfgovernment. The early settlers had lought for and won it, and he intended co stand up for it. Messrs Sidey, Herdman and Davey thought there was too much Governor-m-Council in the Bill. The House divided on Mr Anderson's amendment, which was negatived by 34 votes to 29. After lengthy discussion on clause j0 of the Bill Mr Fowlds moved that progress be reported, and the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.