CIVIL RIGHTS

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 38, 15 February 1933, Page 10

CIVIL RIGHTS

THE PUBLIC SERVICE

RAILWAYMEN'S REQUEST.

MR. FORBES EIRM

A request by a deputation from the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants for full political rights .and the repeal of section 59 of the Finance Act, 1932, which gives the Government the right to dismiss public servants for subversive conduct, was firmly declined today by the Prime Minister, (the Right Hon. G. W. Forbes), who contended that if the representations were granted the result would be detrimental to the Public Service arid to the country as a whole. Mr. M. Connelly said that the late Mr. Massey had put a. Bill through the House giving full- political rights to public servants, but it had been rejected by the Upper House. The question had been before successive Governments for years past, but, although no legislation had been: passed,- the feeling of the members of the service had not decreased. Mr. Forbes: What do you mean by full political rights?, Mr. Connelly: The rights and privileges enjoyed by other sections of the community. You will recognise that we are citizens first and then public servants. We feel with other organisations of the service that the time is long past when any restriction should be imposed upon us. Mr. Connelly said that public servants were taxpayers and bore their share of the burdens of the community in the same way as other people, yet they had no one on the floor-of the House to state their claims. The position had been accentuated as the result of the recent legislation. Mr. Forbes: The Labour Party fought every inch of the way. - Mr. Connelly;, I am not discussing that matter. I am not casting any reflection on the Labour Party, but the farmers would have; objected if- there had been no one to put their case. ,He said that on the question,of superannuation the public servants had a right to place their case before the people of the country. If a man worked eight hours on his job and gave full service, then he should not be interfered with in what he might do afterwards. They were entirely opposed to the spreading oh political propaganda on the job. One of the reasons put forward against their request was that they were in the pay of the Government, but there were others in the same position who enjoyed full civil rights. , . AUSTRALIAN POSITION. In some of the Australian States public, servants who wished to contest Parliamentary elections were, given leave of absence, said Mr. . Connelly. The question of civil rights to public servants had always been a cardinal point of the party to which Mr. Forbes belonged, and he had not only supported Mr. Massey's,Bill but had voted for a similar motion moved by Sir Thomas Wilford. There was no doubt that the request would be eventually granted, and there was no reason why it should not be granted by the present Government. "AFRAID TO MOVE." Mr. L. Mcllvride -said that Mr. lorbes, throughout his whole political career,, had been favourable to- the: granting of political rights to public servants. On local bodies the railwaymen had a fine record, and some of them had served as Mayors of boroughs. They also asked for the repeal of section 59 of the Finance Act, 1932, which gave the Government the right to-dis-miss without appeal-any public servant guilty of subversive conduct. The clause was the essence of injustice. It was well known that members of the Civil Service held diverse political views, but whether they were members of the Reform Party, the United Party, or the Labour-Party they were afraid to move. Tho clause was distinctly detrimental to the morale of the service and they asked that if the Government could not see its way to repeal the clause it should-amend it in order-to allow the right of appeal against summary dismissal. As the matter now stood, no member of the service could criticise the Government or make any statement regarding the political situation. Even in war time the right of appeal was given. MR. FORBES'S REPLY. In reply, the Prime Minister said that the two questions were bound up with each other. It had to be realised that the Public Service had certain privileges, including the right of appeal against dismissal, which were not enjoyed by private employees. A private eriiployer could say that a man was not suitable and dismiss him summarily. Ijf a member of the Public Service were hostile to the policy which a Minister was carrying out, the position would become, unworkable, arid the result would be that the Minister would take full rights and surround himself with men who were sympathetic to his policy. Such a practice would be a vicious one, and would be detrimental to the welfare of the country. He did not think that the majority of the public servants desired full political rights. His experience as a Minister had shown him what the effect would be if his officers desired' to throw the Government out whenever they got the opportunity.. He did -not think -the deputation had ■ taken the practical point of view.. Under section 59, ■ the Government had simply taken the power that was already held by private employers. MrV Connelly said that the rank- and file or the railwaymen-did not come in contact with the Minister,, and there could -be no objection, for instance, against a surfaceman obtaining full political rights. Mr. Forbes replied that "the Railway Department looked upon the general public as its customers, and during an election, when feeling was running high, it might be detrimental to the relationship between the Department and its customers if an employee took the platform. No private employer would allow an employee to act detrimentally to the welfare of his business. They had an instance in Thames, where public servants had attempted a boycott. These men were not dismissed, but they would have been had.they been in private employment. LOCAL BODY ELECTIONS. Mr.-E. J. Dash asked .whether puhlic servants would be allowed to stand for local bodies as in the past. Mr. Forbes said that he did not know how this would work out, even in local body elections. The feeling was high at times, and he did not think it wise that a public servant should take part in a controversy which. \ might be detrimental to- his Department. During the last election feeling had been very strong in some of the country districts against the Public Service, and although this had died down, if the requests made were granted the same feeling might arise. Mr. Connelly asked whether, in view of the fact that the railways had been depoliticalised, the Prime - Minister

would give tho Railways Board power to grant leave of absence to men who wished to stand for an election. Mr. Forbes: I don't think it would be right, to give the board that power. Mr. Connelly: I suggest that it be tried, and if it is found unworkable, then it can be repealed. " Mr. Forbes said that they had to safeguard the relationship between the Railway service and the public. "If you came out and belted me for all you are worth," he said, "do you think I would take you back? . Not on your life." ~