PUBLIC SERVICE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 151, 27 June 1914, Page 11

PUBLIC SERVICE

CRITICISM OF THE ACT MORE LIBERAL RIGHT OP APPEAL WANTED SIR JOSEPH WARD'S CRITICISM. The, working of the Public Service Act was under criticism of the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Joseph Ward) in Parliament yesterday afternoon in reference to a Public Service Amendment Bill, which Sir Joseph asked leave to introduce. The earlier part of the discussion was reported in yesterday's Post, Later in the afternoon Sir Joseph continued his remarks. He said that in the past members of the Post and Telegraph Department had had the right of appeal under the Post and Telegraph Act, but they now had it no longer. There was a strong feeling in the Public Service that the case was being taken to the Appeal Court. The Act had been l^n operation for a considerable period and there were hundreds of men whose appeals had not been heard. _ Why had the Public Service Commissioners given effect to the decision of the Supreme Court? He Wanted to see the Public Service' removed from the cruel position in which it had been placed. He also proposed in the Bill that all vacancies be advertised for and that applications be called for positions. The reason was that it was understood that the Commissioners proposed to block the right of appeal by not advertising the positions. If the Commissioners considered it was undesirable for appeals to be heard, then they might naturally be. expected to take steps to prevent appeals being heard. He wanted to know why the Crown Law Oncers went to the Supreme Court to oppose the application of the Civil servants for right of appeal. Further, he considered that every applicant should have the right to appear before the board with a solicitor. It was not fair that men with little or no legal knowledge should find themselves up against expert legal knowledge in the possession of the board. He thought appellants should have the right to appear with counsel. Mr. Lee : In the railway service also? Sir Joseph Ward : Yes, it would be in the interest of the Lawyers. (Laughter.) Mr. Lee : . Then_ why did you not do it when you were in power? (Laughter.) . Sir Joseph : I have never been able to provide the hon. gentleman with much judgment. Hon. Mr. Fisher : You never had any to spa,re. Rii-i'-uiiSENTATION BY COUNSEL. Sir Joseph urged that the House should give authority for any member of the Civil Service to be represented at the Appeal Board by a solicitor. Then he felt that the power of retrenchment by way of reduction in the Public Service should remain in the hands of the Government of the day. Unless the power remained with the Minister of Finance a very undersirable state of things might arise. There bhottld also be power to prevent any officer being 'dismissed without reasons stated and without giving the right of appeal. At present men might be removed without reason stated and without the right of appeal. He was not making any charge against the Public Service Commissioners, but some such power as he suggested should ,be given. Every Civil servant should have the right to see every report or communication concerning him when he came before the Board of Appeal. The whole Service was under the control of three men for a term — five years, he understood — but it had not yet been stated in Parliament. Sir Joseph concluded with a statement that it was an important matter which should be dealt with at an early moment. REPLY BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL. The Attorney-General (Hon. A. L. Herdman) denied that the Public Service was discontented. He believed that it was never better pleased. (Hear, hear.) Parliament had absolute control over the Public Service Commissioner and his assistants. It was possible by a vote of the Htfuse to remove the Commissioner. There was no reason why, if they desired to have him removed, they should not have him removed tomorrow. It was one of the most democratic measures ever placed on the Statute-book. The attitude of the Opposition was hostile to the Public Service Act. Let the people of New Zealand understand, then, that the return of that party to power would rob the Civil Service of its privileges under the Act. The Chief Justice had decided in the Court judgment that there was a full right of appeal. As Minister, he had stated that there should be a full right of appeal for public servants. Had the public servants of New Zealand previous to the Act the right of appeal ? Who gave them the right of appeal? There was no right of appeal given by Sir Joseph Ward when he was Prime Minister. NO DISCONTENT IN THE SERVICE. The Board of Appeal was constituted by two persons appointed by the Government and one appointed by the Public servants themselves. No better constitution could be devised, and it was left to the present Government to bring it into operation. As to the discontent referred to by Sir Joseph Ward, he said it did not exist. The Post and Telegraph Department had expressed approval of the actions of the Commissioners, and he contended that the administration of the Commissioners had been to the benefit of the Service. But the chief concern of Parliament was that the public of New Zealand had a good Public Service, and, as to the Service itself, he contended that never before in the history of New Zealand had they had the same opp'/'tunities of having justice meted out to them. He went at length into th'/ benefits conferred by the Act on the public and on public servants, laying special stress on the right of entry into the Service by all qualified persons, and the payment of a living wage. As to the Post and Telegraph Department, he gave several instances of increases of salaries which had been granted by the Commissioners, and, as to the whole Service, he said that the task that the Commissioner and his assistants had performed had been a colossal one. They had dealt with about 11,000 officers, and placed them on a basis of classification. There were abotit 1400 appeals in the Genera] Branch, and 380 in the Post and Telegraph Department — a record of which the Commissioners might well be proud. If there was any discontent it was on the part of old supporters of the Opposition, and 'had been steadily fanned by the Opposition generally. OUGHT TO BE UNDER MINISTERIAL CONTROL. In reply, Sir Joseph Ward said that if the Attorney-General's argument was correct then 90 per cent, of the Civil Service were with the Opposition. Personally, he had never been inside an office of the Public Service since he had ceased to be Minister, nor had he ever gone about seeking information in the contemptible way suggested by the last speaker. There had been an Appeal Board previous to present Act in reference to the railways, and there had been a right of appeal from classification in regard to the whole service. He was not criticising the individuals of the Public Service Boardj it y/ae simply

the principle. The Attorney-General, whilo in opposition, had always opposed increases of salary in the Civil Service. Why, if there were so many benefits from the Public Servico Act, why was not the whole of the Public Service, including the railways, brought under it? He maintained once again that the services ought to be under Ministerial control. The Prime Minister : Do you want to repeal tho Act? Sir Joseph : " I would bring in amendments to bring the Service more under Ministerial control." He went on to say that in Australia they were revoking the system of Commissioner control and going back to Ministerial control, at least in one department. He was going to introduce the Bill proposed and he was going to call for a division on it. He was quite convinced that the Public servants were dissatisfied. The Bill was read a first time.