The Dominion. SATURDAY, JUNE 12, 1909. SOPHISTRIES AGAINST REFORM.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 532, 12 June 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, JUNE 12, 1909. SOPHISTRIES AGAINST REFORM.

Although it is notoriously difficult, in advocating political reforms of a searching kind, to crush, out ad captandutii arguments by pure logic, the friends of clean government will have good reason to be pleased with the debate in the House yesterday upon, Civil Service reform. This is a reform which has been so frequently .urged, in these columns that it is unnecessary to re-state in full detail the. unanswerable case for the removal of the Civil Service from political control. The Government's retrenchment scheme is a sufficient argument in itself against a system which permits the party, in power to use the public funds to buy support by'giving billets. But for the past ten , years the 'evils of the system have been apparentln a dozen directions—in the Civil Servants' fearfulness of betraying any regard for the policy or the people opposed to the Government, in the grotesque belief of many Civil Servants that they are employees of the Ministry, in the shamelessness with which some Civil Servants have striven to show the Government their affection, 'and, finally, in the astonishing growth of the number of Civil Servants who owe their places to the Government's obligation of pleasing their friends and relatives. The case in favour of establishing an independent Board of Control, which shall be responsible only to. Parliamont, is, as we have said, unanswerable. The Prime Minister, however, sought k> answer it yesterday, and his arguments lend themselves so readily to destruction that a brief discussion of them will be useful as helping the public to understand still more fully the value' of the system proposed by Mr. Herdmak. • The contention on which the Government most relies is the plea that a Civil Service Board would be an "irresponsible autocracy." Hitherto the Prime Minister has relied upon the words we have' l quoted to do their :work without any supporting arguments. He has realised that that will no longer serve, and he sought yesterday to bring some of those arguments forward. Naturally, of course succeeded in uttering . some ludicrously transparent sophistries. Supposing, he said, that reductions had to be made ( under the regime of Commissioners. All the Treasurer would require to Bay was that the public expenditure would have to be reduced by £250,000 or £500,000 and the responsibility would be thrown' on.the Board." People would find, he went on, that the Board would "ruthlessly dismiss" Civil Servants without regard to their fitness or unfitness. If the Board were thus to behave-of course, no Board would wish, even if it dared, to do euoh.a thing needlessly-the only difference between its action and the action of the Government in,its present"retrenchment scheme would be that the Board would at leasibe impartial. But this suggestion of the Prime Minister's is eas-ily-answered. It is to avoid the necessity for, such reductions as mentioned that a Civil. Service Board in required. An independent Board would have no incentive to over-staff and find billets to win political support. An independent Board would be open always to the criticism of the public and the press, but, more than that, its actions would be open to tho criticism in Parliament of the Ministry , ; ,of the day. It would have a direct incen- ; tive as a matter of self-interest, as well as ; a matter of duty, to. see that tho efficiency of the Service was maintained at a reasonable cost to tho country. Its actions would be more open to scrutiny than the actions of a Government, which could keep'back information which a Civil Service Board, would be required by statute to disclose. There aro a host of reasons why the necessity of such.retrenchment as suggested by Sin Joseph Ward should not arise under an independent Board; and should,tho state of the country's affairs be so bad as to call for such a step, it can be takon for granted that tho retronchmont called for would be still greater with the Service under Ministerial con. trol. The Civil Service, to whom this argument of the Prime Minister's was specially addressed, know that this is so. In any case, of course, the absurd references to an "irresponsible autocracy" are quite idio in Uifl proaoaco of tho fact thai

fhe present system is purely despotic. The Government may bo nominally responsible to 1 arhament, but is tho Government's majority likely to interfere with the despot when his actions are the very means of that majority's existence? The Government's "responsibility to tho people 8 representatives" vanishes when the peoples representatives contain a majority who, in a matter of party strategy as in tho case of the proposed prorogation of tho session, forgot that they are tho peoples representatives, and place tho wishes of their leader above the interests of the country. In the case supposed by the I'KiMB Minister the Board would be under no obligation to do what the Trea slirer ordered: its business would be,- in the first place, to keep clear of the corruption that renders retrenchment necessary and, m the second place, to make drashc variations of policy only undor Parliament's direction. It would bo independent of tho Government's party necessities.

there is a large Civil Service, where the State-'s functions aro very numerous, the temptation to use the Service itself to the Government of the day ■ whatever.that Government may be. We ! r ; n t OS 7 that - mobt Governments \\°uld r , cfraill from succumbing so complotoly to the temptation as the present Government and its predecessor have done. But the danger remains. The onlv change which a Civil Service Board won Id brmg.about-it is, of course, a vjtal change-would be the elimination of log-rolhng, wire-pulling, and, in a word, of Tamnuiny methods of administratiou The Civil Service wouLd welcome such a change no less warmly than the country as a whole. Merit would at last get ite reward n, the Service, and .onscienS would be free; the country would enj™ the greater efficiency and the absence of waste The letter from the Victorian btate Treasurer which was read by Mr Herdmah should settle the'question for those who like to see abstract logic backed' up by practical experience. The system of non-pohtical control, says Mr Wadbell, has worked well for twenty years. Wor is this only a personal opinion "I do not remember," he says, "any proposal ever having been made in tho House 1 to return to. the old system of political control . The New South Wales 'public wouldnot think of going back to that system: 'to do so would undoubtedly be a retrograde step." An efficient. Board responsible only to Parliament,' would bo responsible to a Parliament of men with no reasons for taking any but. a national view of the Service. A Government, also nominally responsible to Parliament is responsible only to its own majority, who are composed of men with every sort of reason for preserving the "Tammany methods that assist to keep them in' their places. That is the position in a nutshell It will supply Mr., Wright, who wondered.why the Government opposed, Mr Herdjun's Bill, with the reason for the defiance of facts that so surprised him •The fact is that.the Government simply detests tho idea of parting with any of it 3 patronage. It may be noted, in conclusion, that Mr. Massev could have quite effectively justified his submission of the names of suitable persons for Govern-' meht posit.ons by saying that it is no relection upon honest men that they do not leave the, field clear to dishonesty. In-' deed,.when State .billets.go by favour, honest men would be'doing wrong if they failed to make an attempt to have i fewproper appointments, made.' Yesterday's debate, in clearing the ground for future discussion has set the reform movement on the high road to success