NO PADLOCKS.

Evening Star, Issue 22271, 24 February 1936, Page 8

NO PADLOCKS.

In the course of an address in Wellington before the members of the New Zealand Society of Engineers the Hon. Robert Semple, in his downright way, invited the public servants of the Dominion to express their thoughts upon every question that faces the country. This deliverance needs a little expanding. Is a literal interpretation to be put upon it and free criticism of the Government’s acts to be permitted in the Press, on the platform, or, to employ a local application, even in “ hotel bars,” if State employees ever use such places? The Minister says he does not want to put a padlock on their lips. Supposing a public servant should disapprove of the idea of finishing the Napier-Gisborne railway or of the. guaranteed price plan, or of giving “ running shoes ” to members of various boards .that Cabinet considers superfluous, is he to be allowed to proclaim his views to the world, though they be in direct opposition to the Government’s policy? Such a course hardly seems feasible. No private employer would suffer it gladly if one of his staff gave vent to hostile criticisms of the way in which his business was conducted, and, after all. Labour Ministers, no matter how exalted their principles, are only human. A certain amount of qualification may be taken from Mr Semple’s comments, for he says: “When the public servants have something that I should know, that the Government should know, that the nation should know, 1 ask them to come to me.” That is another matter. It implies cooperation between Ministers and the Public Service, which must react beneficially in the conduct of the country’s business.

Ever since Ministers took up their duties they have evinced a disposition to consult the officials of the various departments and to take advantage of their experience and technical knowledge. Soon after assuming the portfolio of Public Works Mr Sempla said

his department was a solid and efficient organisation, ready and anxious to function, and would be given a chance to prove its worth. He remarked that he was determined to build up a team of workers who, by reason of fair treatment and decent conditions, would bo proud to take their part in building New Zealand. Later on, with characteristic candour, the Minister said: “ We have got to have the co-operation and the trust of the men on the job. We have no time for the ‘ scrounger,’ for the'street corner lounger, or the Stock Exchange gambler. . . . When we have given you the means whereby you can work efficiently, and when we have given you an adequate reward, please step on it, because if you don’t you will step out.” There is no circumlocution in Mr Semple’s speeches. He goes direct to the point, and the reference above quoted makes it deal that in exchange for reasonable pay and conditions he is determined to have faithful work. In the Minister’s pronouncement there is wrapped up the matter of public servants standing for Parliament without having to resign their positions. Logically there is no reason why they should not do so provided campaigning is not allowed to interfere with their official duties, but as a matter of expediency it is distinctly inadvisable. A public servant’s political principles, for obvious reasons, should be his private concern. If he contested a seat, criticised the Ministerial policy, suffered defeat, and returned to his work, it would need no stretch of imagination to sec the complications that would be likely fo arise. Mr Semple says no man need be or should be mu/zled. But that does not rule out a wise discretion on the part of those who are employed by the State.