THE PUBLIC SERVICE.

Grey River Argus, 17 January 1922, Page 6

THE PUBLIC SERVICE.

COMMISSIONER SYSTEM CONDEMNED. RE TR ENCHMENT HAR DSHIPS CITED. WELLINGTON, January 14. In the House, on the vote of £ll,BOO for the Public Service Commissioner’s office, a lengthy and at times heated debate took place. Numerous cases of hardships under the retrenchment scheme were brought forward. Mr. Mitchell: I believe the Public Service have no more consideration for the returned soldiers than for an> of the old men they are putting out. Circumstances had convinced him that the Commissioners had no' sympathy whatever for returned soldiers. Mr. T. M. Wilford: I absolutely agree with you. The Government piu posed to kill the Public Service Com missioners, not at once, but inch by inch. The Government saw that thr» Public Service Commissioners had nothing to do with the railwaymen u. the police. He then cited the case of x lady who had been in the Lanas Department for twenty years. She had an invalid sister in plaster of Paris, with a consumptive daughter to support, and had to keep another sister at home to look after them; but the Public Service Commisioners had sacked her without rhyme or reason. The Commissioners had also sacked a man who had thirty-five years’ service entitled to £2OO a year pension, and had put another man in his place at the same salary. And that was Gov* ernment economy! Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) said that he knew the case of the lady referred to by Mr Wilford, and he might have added that the lady had appealed against the Department because she was not getting the promotion she was entitled to. She won her case, and then, at the very first opportunity, she was dismissed. Mr. Wright alleged that the ActingPublic Service Commissioner, Mr. Verschaffelt, bad dismissed certain men In Christchurch, who had appealed and won their appeal, and three men held a particular religious belief. Mr. W. T. Jennings (Waitomo): Shame for you to bring that in here. Mr. H. E. Holland (Buller): What is the belief of these men? 1 Mr. Wright replied that they were Protestants.

Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central): And what is the belief of the man who dismissed them? Mr. Wright said that he did not want to bring that up. Mr. Jennings: But you did. It is the P.P.A. you are bringing in here. Mr. Wright said that there had been several such cases, cases of grave injustice, and several strong petitions would be brought before the House if there was time before the session ended. He cited the case of another man who held a good position^-who had gone to the front with a promise that he would be reinstated; but when he returned the promise was not kept. Mr. Fraser contended that the mem- i ber for Welington Suburbs should be called upon to either substantiate or ’ withdraw the charge that he had made I against the- Acting Public Service I Commissioner. If the charge could bo ' proved, such a man should be kicked out of the service. Mr. Jennings: Hear, hear. Mr Fraser added that the case of the lady in the Lands office mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. i Wright had left a bad taste in the mouth of practically every member | present, to think that a woman with such heavy family responsibilities would be treated in such a fashion. The Minister for Lands had said that

there was some reason. He wanted to know the reason. They were not doing their duty, he declared, when they were driving people to despair, even if it was in the name of retrenchment. He had noticed two cases of suicide amongst the retrenched men. Mr. Massey: No, not retrenched. Mr. Fraser: Then dismissed. He knew cases of actual starvation facing these people. Personally, he would even -rather pay them for doing nothing. i ‘ ‘ Great Deal of Inhumanity. ’ ’ | Dr. Newman (Wellington East) stat* ‘ ed that those who represented Wellington constituencies heard of a number )f cases of hardship such as those mentioned by Mr. Mitchell and others. 1 He would say, in cold bk< d, that he lad found a great deal cf inhumanity n the way in which men had been dismissed. i !

Sir John Luke (Wellington North)> who also detailed a number of cases, stated that he had been pledged to support the Public Service Commissioner, but if this sort of thing went on he would have to review his pledge.' Mr. G. Witty (Ricarton) remarked that the number of public servants vnder the control of the Commissioners i

L-ad been reduced by two-thirds. Mr. Wilford: They only control 7000 cut of 51,000. Mr. Witty: And yet we pay them the same as previously. He believed that the whole system had been a failure from the start.

Mr. H. W. Field (Otaki) also men-1 tioned cases of hardship under the retrenchment scheme. a Mr. Holland said that a charge had • been deliberately made that certain men had been victimised because of their religoius convictions Mr Massey: Do you believe that? Demand for Enquiry. Mr, Holland: I don’t know any-, thing about it, but I say that if he I

was capable of such victimisation ihen he would be a disgrace not only to the service but to the community, and should not be permitted to remain in the service a day longer. If the charges were not correct, he added, they should be withdrawn. The Government could not leave the matter as it stood, because the Government would thereby leave the impression ( that the charges were true and that it 1 ’ did not dare to move in regard to them. If the member for Wellington , Suburbs had made the charges knowing them toi be false, he ought not to sit in the House; but if they were true, he ought to have an opportunity , of proving them, and the officer conI cerned should be dismised. He would J not rest, he declared, until the matter was cleared up. Mr. Mitchell gave four cases in ' point of soldiers discharged by the ! Public Service Commissioners, and ; moved that the vote be reduced by £5 Ito indicate that the House was not I satisfied with the administration of the Public Service Commissioners. I Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata) pointed , out that in October last he had asked : for a return as to the officers dismiss•ed from the service under the re- ! trenchment scheme, but it had not I been presented yet. He held that the I House should have it before the Retrenchment Bill was introduced. | The Prime Minister, referring to the charges of victimisation, said that he knew perfectly well that the member 1 for Wellington Suburbs would not state ■anything that Ee did not believe to be absolutely correct; but he could not help thinking that the hon. member had been misled. He would like to [ say, however, that the Government I would not tolerate any oppression of anyone in the Government service, or outside of it, on acount .of his religious beliefs. I Mr. E. J. Howard: Nor his political | views? Mr. Massey: Men are net going to |he oppressed on account of them in | this country, not by the Government, anyhow. | Mr. Howard: I wish I could believe that; though I don’t blame you as an individual. I Premier Promises Inquiry. The Prime Minister stated that, if ! the member for Wellington Suburbs ! would supply him with the particulars of the charges he had made, a proper inquiry would be held. ; Mr. Holland: Will you agree to a I select committee of the House to in- ! vestigate them? I Mr. Massey: No; I won’t, because | polities would at once enter into it. I will have an inquiry made by an impartial man. Mr Holland: Will you appoint a Royal Commission? Mr Massey: 1 am not going to be cross-examined by the hon. gentleman. Mr Holland: I am only asking a ‘ courteous question. i Mr Massey: The matter has not been I considered by Cabinet. The hon. member must know that it must I>° conI sidered by Cabinet. He repeated that . if the member for Wellington Suburbs | would supply the particulars the matter would be properly investigated. I Mr D. G. Sullivan: Will you report , the result of the inquiry to the House? Mr Massey said that it would be re{ported to the public. It was not at ' ’ all probable that the House would be .sitting when the report was made. Mr Sullivan: Do you resent the question ? * Mr Massey: .1 cannot hear. I Mr Sullivan: You apparently resent the question. Mr Massey: No, but I cannot say when the report will be ready. Mr Holland: Suppose the hon. member does not give you the information? Mr Wright: I will give the information. Mr Holland: That is what T have been waiting to hear. Mr Holland remarked that the hon. gentleman was one of the most extreme members in the House on these matters.

THE 33 1-3 PER CENT CUT. PROBABLY APPLIES TO BONUS. | The telegram from Wellington on Sunday evening in reference to the Government’s proposed cut in the salaries of public servants did not suggest that the 33 1-3 per cent, reduci tion mentioned referred only to the bonus which the public servants gener- j ally have enjoyed for some little time i on account of the rise in the cost of| — living. This bonus amounts to £5O per ■ annum in each case. It is now believ- - cd that the proposed reduction refers to the bonus. This would mean a general reduction equal to £l6 13s 4d “

per annum. The General Secretary of the Public Servants’ Association has, it is stated, advised the various branches that it is probably the bonus to which the proposed reduction relates. It seems, therefore, peculiar that the Prime Minister’s statement should have been sent out so ambiguously.