NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1531, 29 August 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

Eitheh the Opposition is not taking itself very seriously just now or it has been "let clown" rather badly by its leading members. Not only is it unable to secure the leader it wanted, but it would seem to have been equally unfortunate in the choice of the Executive Committee which we have been told is to take the place of a leader. This Executive, which is announced to-day, consists of Sir James Caeroll and Messrs. G. W. Russell, \Y. D. Macdokald, J. A. _ Hasan, and G. Witty, all very estimable gentlemen no doubt, but, if takeu as being representative of the political wisdom and fighting strength of the antiReformers, must make the outlook blue indeed for their followers. Sin James Cabboll certainly is an astute and experienced politician, whose counsels may be of service to his side, but it is a little difficult to picture him in a strenuous role waging active warfare or leading forlorn hopes which call for any sustained physical or mental exertion. Where, however, is Sni Joseph AVabd? Did he decline to associate himself with the leaders of the Opposition ? And Mr. Arthur Myers, ux-Minister of Finance, Railways, and Defence; and Me. Wilfokd; and Mr. Laukensox, and other bright and shining lights 'I Why are their names missing from tho Executive which is to shape the plans and guide the destiny of the anti-Reformers'! It is impossible to believe that they have been tossed aside by an ungrateful party; hut if that is not the case, why have they suddenly become so retiring and dropped into the background , ? The species of "Liberalism which developed under the Continuous Ministry certainly cuts a sorry figure in Opposition. There has recently been brought to tho surface a fooling of dissatisfaction and discontent amongst the first assistant 'masters of the large city schools with regard to the treatment accorded thorn by the Wellington Education Board in the matter of certain appointments. This feeling found expression in. a letter of protest which was addressed to the. Board by the Wellington Branch of the Teachers' Institute, and read at the Board's meeting on Tuesday last. In view of what is behind this dissatisfaction amongst the first assistant masters, it seems to us that the letter of the Institute was treated somewhat cavalierly—it was simply "received"—and from the report of the proceedings it does not appear that members of the Board fully appreciated the fact that the protest was something more serious than a spasmodic ebullition from some disappointed applicants. It was the considered act of a representative body of which the first assistants are but a section, and that being so, it is rather a pity that the. Board did not make some attempt to ascertain exactly what lay at the root of tho matter. Shortly stated, the first assistant masters in the city schools consider that, professionally speaking, they have been driven into a, cul-de-sac —that, in their opinion, is implied by recent appointments which have been made by the Education Board. The next step up tha ladder of promotion for them would be to the charge of such a school as Greytown, or Island Bay. The Board has expressly stated that for such appointments the claims of applicants who have had charge of country schools will, other things being equal, receive preference. These first assistants who. have not had this experience desire to know where they arc. If they cannot get promotion in this way, how else, they ask, are they to get it ? We do not question the wisdom of a policy which directs that previous experience in charge of a smaller school shall be a sine qua nnn of eligibility for appointment to the headmastership of a senior grade school, but the same policy should also have insisted upon a similar qualification from candidates for first assistantships in tho past, and if this latter provision has been relaxed to the extent th'at there are now in our city schools first assistant masters who have had no experience in charge of a smaller grade school in the country, the insistence of the provision now will impose an injustice upon them, for they cannot now qualify without loss of salary.' ■

The Bill introduced by Me. HerdJtAN to remove the Public Service beyond the reach of political patronage does something more than this. It not only provides for the appointment of Commissioners to take charge of the Service, but it contains the machinery for separating the different branches of the Service into divisions and provides a scale of salaries within each of those divisions which will enable the employees of the State to clearly understand their position and what they have to look forward to. There are a number of safeguards to ensure that promotion and advancement in the Service shall be by merit, and consideration has been given to the possibility of injustice being done inadvertently or with intent, provision being made for appeal to an independent tribunal in case of trouble arising. It is difficult to see how any capable and conscientious public servant can find ground for objection to the measure, save, perhaps, in minor details; but it is easy to understand why the political tout and hanger-on should find cause to resent its introduction. The real fight on the Bill should take place on the principle of Ministerial i\ Commissioner control, or in other words, on the question of the elimination of political patronage and all that it means from the Public Service of the country. It is proposed under the Bill Ui make all appoininimitij U) the PuMit:-S«yviro and »U .advancement iu the Service depend-

cut on merit, and merit alone. That is a proposal which no good citizen can do otherwise than support. We are quite aware that the opponents of the measure will raise the old bogey th.it the Commissioner will have his personal favourites. Even if this should be the case —and it by no means necessarily follows that anyone will bo prejudiced thereby— the .possibilities of the Service suffering from the personal bias of an individual arc infinitesimal when compared with the injury and injustice done by the pressure on Ministers and members of Parliament from political supporters seeking billets or advancement in the Service for themselves and their friends. ,For every eas? of favouritism on personal grounds likely to occur under a Commissioner, scores, nay, hundreds, may lie expected under Ministerial control on political grounds.