THE PUBLIC SERVICE

Evening Post, Volume CXXII, Issue 32, 6 August 1936, Page 20

THE PUBLIC SERVICE

RESTORATION OF RIGHTS

BILL PASSED BY HOUSE

The Political Disabilities Removal Bill, which gives full civil rights to the members of the Civil Service, was passed by the House ©f Representatives last evening. The debate on the. Bill was resumed when the House met yesterday afternoon, and the second reading was agreed to on the voices shortly after 5 o'clock. There were only two divisions in the Committee stage. Few new arguments were advanced during the discussion, and the suggestion was made that the Civil Service would have to give something in return for the rights it was receiving.

Mr. C. H. Chapman (Government, Wellington North) said the present tendency was lor the Civil Service to increase, and it became more necessary that civil servants should enjoy full rights. He had had to resign from the Civil Service to contest his first election in 1008, and when he was defeated he did not get his job back. He was told that he was not wanted as he had left to please himself. A civil servant should not be asked to renounce his rights. Political parties in the past had always looked for financial support from those who benefited from their; legislation. The Reform' Party Was no exception, and he instanced a circular which had been ; sent to farmers who had benefited from the high exchange asking them to support the Coalition Party financially. MANST DIFFICULTIES. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates' (National, Kaipara) said he could see no end of difficulties in the Bill. What was to prevent a highly-placed official who was standing for \ Parliament from disclosing official secrets to which he had access, from the public platform? Moreover, there was a clear understanding that a civil servant could stand for Parliament if he wanted to, and there were cases where civil servants had stood and failed and had gone back into the Civil Service. Was it wise that a civil servant should have the same liberty as an "ordinary private citizen? It would be very awkward if the head of a department could oppose his Minister and quote from the official files to show the Minister, was wrong. Mr.'Coates referred to an instance'in Australia where the freedom of the Civil Service was abused, with the result that a very undesirable position arose. It would: be,a sorry state of affairs if a Minister; of the\ Crown was to be subject to. the:whims of departmental officers.'''.; Anything that' undermined, or that was likely :.tp. 16we\r,,the, .prestige of the Minister could-hot/be in the interests of the country or Jof the Public Service. There was no disjability that could reasonably arise in regard to the Public Service. It;^vas right that there should be that-dist'incl tion between a public servant and an ordinary citizen. The civilvservarit had ample freedom; he had-the; right -to; express an opinion providing he did; not trespass on: public: policy; /.:- USE OF-FUNDS;-";- '■.-[..- ■■■. Mr. Coates objected;to the clause, relating to the disposal of an organisa-. tion's funds. It was-wrong that the savings and contributions of the Public Service should be devoted to party funds. "■''■•;■" > Mr. A. S. Richards (Government, Roskill): It is done in Britain today. Mr. D. W. Coleman (Government, Gisborne):. Whose money is it? Mr. Coates: I will leave you to worry that out. It is pernicious and wrong in principle that money of this kind should be devoted to party funds. What branch of the Public Service, and how many, are asking for this legislation? Can you give us their names? And if they give a thousand, does that mean that they will get a rise or consideration of their conditions? Mr. Coates said that it ■ opened the way to bargaining With the Leader of the Opposition. .-;■' ' ■ Replying to Mr. J. Thorn (Government, Thames), he said that civil servants had certain rights of free speech, but he considered that they should be very careful before they gave the 'civil servants complete, rights of free speech; it would be dangerous in so; far as they might comeintd'direct^conflict with a Minister of the Crown. There, was at present: ample freedom as far, as; law,:, custom, tradition,- and principle were concerned, and to extend it would be .unwise. RESTRICTED SPEECH. Mr. J. P. Barclay ■ (Government, Marsden) condemned what he called the famous clause '59,Jn the , Finance: Act of 1932. In North Auckland during the ■..election: campaign,': if. a mariV\vas a supporter; of the last-Government he was,allowed the right of free■ speech, but if he was an. opponent he >was not. Mr.;,Coates /himself had;had. as chair; man of a meeting the. chairman df iq mortgage, adjustment commission, who was. being paid out>of'-State funds. vf'l went into, a Post Office," said Mr. Bar-: clay, "and said tothe' boy behind the counter,"'How, are you?' and the boy looked round to see if. anybody was looking .before'he spoke to me." Mr. Coates: Perhaps there*were other reasons for that. '(Laughter.) ,:•/ , Mr. Barclay:, I went in again, and said, "How are you?" and the boy ■said,. "I'm not allowed to tell you." (Laughter.) ; He went on to say that railway officials had resigned from the Labour Party because they were afraid of losing their jobs. The Minister of Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong): A reign of terror. Mr. Barclay: Yes, a real reign of terror. . ■ ■ The Rev. C. Carr (Government, Timaru) paid a high tribute to the work of the Public Service. They did the work behind the scenes without any hope of honour and glory. He saw no reason why public servants should not have the right to stand for Parliament. : ' - Mr. F. W. Schramm (Government, Auckland East) said the last Government had been in disrepute with the people of New Zealand, and yet civil servants had been liable to dismissal without notice ' for opening their mouths. There had been a reign of terror in the Civil Service; there had been pimps, spies, and other political malefactors to watch civil servants while they were at work. His opinion was that a'civil servant who gave'up a good salary and his superannuation rights to sit in Parliament would be a "mug," but if he wanted to do so he should not be debarred. . PRIME MINISTER'S. VIEWS. The Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) said that Dr. Johnson once stated that nothing would ever bejattempted if all possible objections were first to be overcome.- "That will take a lot of knocking over," said Mr. Savage. "It is handy when the Opposition happens to be on the warpath." The Prime Minister said that the Leader of the Opposition had said that a postmaster might be on duty and contest an election at the same time. "That is not going to happen," said Mr. Savage, "and if anything is necessary to make that doubly sure we will see to it air right." There was something in the suggestion that had been made_ in regard to a postmaster—and it might apply to any other position —and there was nothing-to stop such

a person standing unless it was a refusal of leave. He would have to make some sort •of application. "I will alter that," he continued. "We can have it done in another place if not here." It was not the intention to allow any public servant to hold down his job and run for Parliament at the same time,- drawing his salary, and contesting a seat. The Secretary of the Treasury had been brought into the discussion. "If he has half as much sense as I think 'he has, he will never be a candidate for Parliament," commented Mr. Savage. v> The Leader of the Opposition (the Rt. Hon. G...W. Forbes): I think you are right there. Replying to an interjection that such an officer might have reached the retiring age, the Prime Minister said that in such a case he would not be bound in the way that had been suggested. Mr. Forbes: He would be a private citizen then. ■-..-•';■. • • Mr. Savage said he could not imagine the Secretary of the Treasury, even if he did stand for Parliament, against the Minister of Finance, using the information which he had gathered in his official position to tell the constituents the methods of the present Administration in regard to Treasury matters. He could not imagine anybody doing such a thing. It would kill a candidate's chances from the commencement and he would deserve it. ... ..'' -,-..:. • .... '■' The Prime Minister said he had advocated free speech for :the, Public Service and some of the public servants had started to use it-oh him. "I am> not infallible," he said; "I am like other people and can make mistakes. Some of the public servants think I have made them already. : That does not alter their right to express themselves. I have to be big enough to meet them in :'the■; open and abide by tlie corisequences.?'■>.-. ',■-,■•■■• iv:-. \L^';u / l ;. : :;(;.,;:Wlhr:A^plylplNG ; :L^NE^^;::t'-^ ' Mr.' Savage said1 he had: to justify everything .the members of the Government;, were.;;doing, :an<L if;;it could be shown that they, were wrong,.they" would take their- beating like' men. He could not see that there should be a dividing line between the. Public Service and private employment' Both •branches had.the same-interests".-• in everything that made life, worth living,' but under the "law'':as"'it''stood civ.il servants could not exercise their rights like: other people. Their rights had been taken away, by legislation. It was quite evident that a suggestion had been made that if another Government came in the members of :the Civil Service would be victimised. He was not sure that the Public Service had always voted Labour; •he was not in a position to know. It was not a question of who anybody was going to vote for. A member of the Civil Service might join the Reform Party, or the A'.S.R.S. might take.a ballot to decide whether its members would- affiliate with the National Party. , They had a perfect right to do that. "If the worst comes to the worst and they want to join the. Labour Party, why should they not have that right?" asked Mr. Savage. , ■ . The Prime Minister said .that the Public Service was not such a wonderful service after all. Mr. Forbes: A lot of people want to get there. Mr. Savage: A lot of people want to get out of the service and take up better positions outside. .':'..' \\.'■>:': •:v;■M^■::Fo_r.bes■^•••as.ke^::.■,■What'.■■about■:■'■t&e■ conscientious objector.." " : ■ Mr. Savage said that .conscientious objectors were found iti'.; the industrial field and in the political field. He would :not likci to -compel .them to vote. .He did not want to do an injustice;.'.tb'any'ont!.- :He wanted to make it quite 'clear /that all unions could use, their funds'in 'the way the ■majority of members agreed,' either \t or, industrial or political purposes..lt >ad to be done according •to -. their rules.-He did not expect to convince his friends, on the Opposition benches The Government had a job'to do arid was doing'it as well- as it' could "-" ' .Mr. Schramm: The rigHt men in the .right place;' '■ ■ : .;- '~.• 'm Mr. Savage: .Yes, the: right in en in the right, place./;■> ■:-■: .•/■:, ■ The second'reading was carried on the voices. ... •..'■'.'■■ ... .•••'■■ ■'■'■ "RUNNING AMUCK."' ' .'I. ,'• /In Committee, the Hon.'A. Hamilton (National,: Wallace) declared- that the Government was running amuck with democracy., It was denying- the- rights of the minority—the rights of those conscientious objectors who objected not so much to joining the unions, but to putting their funds to political uses. They had a right to expect better treatment. Mr. J. A. iLee (Government, Grey Lynn) said that every measure the Government put through created a conscientious objector. The'only way to stop creating conscientious objectors was for Parliament to go into liquidation and stop legislating. The Hon. Sir Alfred Ransom (National, Pahiatua) said that it had been the practice of all previous Governments to allow the public servants full freedom in regard to the exercise of their votes. The clause relating to party funds was one of the most extraordinary proposals placed before the House. "I venture to say that if any organisation uses its funds other than for' the support of the Government, it will be a very poor look-out for that organisation," declared Sir Alfred. "I say that without any yindictiveness. It is a dangerous principle." Sir Alfred added that the country would be amazed that public servants were to be corrupted—he used the word advisedly—by being dragged into party politics whether they liked it or not. Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford): Did the public servants ask for the right to give their funds to political parties? The Prime Minister: Yes. I have spent a lifetime with those in the Public Service and outside it, and 1 think I know what* they want. lam not guessing. < The Hon. W. E. Parry (Minister of Internal Affairs) charged the Leader of the1 Opposition with attempting to cipnvey to the House that the only reason why the public servants were giving such valuable service to the country was because their rights of citizenship were restricted; and he had inferred that the Public Service would have to show its gratitude to the Government for the legislation that had' been passed. ■ NO CONSCIENCE ALLOWED. The Hon. H.. T. Armstrong (Minister of Labour) said that,there had been a reign of terror in. the Public. Service.

"Public servants were not allowed to have a conscience," said the Minister, "unless it guided them in the direction of supporting the Government." Mr. Coates said he did not propose to follow the line of the previous speaker. After all, he did not have a head like the Minister. Mr. Armstrong: Yours is like a Maori tomahawk. (Laughter.) : "Whether my head is like a Maori tomahawk or a civil servant is like a tin of fish doesn't enter into, the argument very much," rejoined Mr. Coates. Mr. Coates referred to a statement by Mr. Barclay that civil servants had been"compelled to resign from membership of the Labour Party. He said he would challenge any member of the Government to show one case of a civil servant being compelled to resign his position because he was a member of the Labour Party. "I'm afraid the long bow seems to have caught on a bit," he added. "This is a little bit of political propaganda; we all know the game." The Minister of Public Works (the Hon. R. Semple) referred to section 59 of the Finance Act, 1932, and said that as a result of that provision large numbers of civil servants had resigned from the Labour Party. To give the public servants equal political rights would not interfere with the Public Service or affect their loyalty. Mr. S. G.Smith (National, New Plymouth) contended that it was wrong that 51 per cent, of the members of an association should compel the other 49 per cent, to contribute to a political party. He asked the, Prime Minister

to provide that a secret ballot should be. held. , /._, RESIGNATIONS IN SHOALS. Mr. J. Thorn (Government, Thames) said that immediately after the enactment of section 59 of the Finance Act resignations 6f,(/ciyil v servants from branches of theit^bbur Party were.received in shoals.-In one case twothirds of the members of ; a branch resigned because of fears due to the enactment of that section. If Mr. Ceates cared to call at the office of the Labour Party with him he would show him the actual resignations.- There was a reign of terror as a result of section 59 being passed.- . .. . ■': '; . Mr. R. A.'Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) said that civil servants were, not loyal to any political party, but were loyal to the Government of'the day.. They were not-affect-ed by political change's. .-■ i The Leader of the , Opposition said that if party" politicians were allowed in the Public Service endeavouring all the time to.; forward the interests of their political', party, it: would create a feeling that would not make for efficiency in • the Public Service and for the maintenance of the good will that should exist, and had existed in the past. After a little further discussion the Bill was passed, and the House adjourned'at 10.5 p.m. Provision for nearly 500 miles of cycle tracks is made in the £130,000,000 five-year plan for the improvement of British roads, which has. been announced by Mr. Hore-Belisha.