The Grey River Argus TUESDAY. August 4, 1936. CIVIL SERVANTS’ POLITICAL DISABILITIES.

Grey River Argus, 4 August 1936, Page 4

The Grey River Argus TUESDAY. August 4, 1936. CIVIL SERVANTS’ POLITICAL DISABILITIES.

More candidly Ilian probably any colleague, Mr Forbes stated the reason why his Party oppose the Bill to free public servants of their political disabilities, when he Loki Parliament the great majority of State employees are Labour supporters. Not until Labour has gained power have they had a chance to obtain the same political liberty as others enjoy. Whv they should be deprived the Nationalists failed to demonstrate. The Bill enables a public servant to stand for Parliament without losing his position, and removes the menace of dismissal without notice or trial which was made law in 1932 bySection 59 of the Finance Act. The greatest play, however, was made by the Nationalists on the proviso that public servan's’ organisations may vote money from their funds for any political party. The Bill also, enables industrial organisations-and trade unions to decide by ballot to take part in politics. Mr Polson went to America for an argument, saying that a change of administration there caused many to be “tipped out,” and implying that this measure would lead to the same thing here. This could only mean a disposition on the part of some politicians here to victimise political opponents who happen to be vulnerable through being public servants, and so being within reach of the antipathy of a hostile administration. The possibility of such a base spirit being fostered is not a reason 1o deny any citizen full political liberty. The threat of the sack in the 1932 Finance Act was an instance of pure terrorism, ft, indicated that the then administration had wished public servants to conceive their duty as one of loyally not simply to the Stale, but the ruling faction. The present proposal leaves the public servants free to take any political stand they like, and to refuse any vote of money to any party. Mr Coates said that civil servants should'be “free from any political consideration.” Flow can they be? AU citizens have their political interests, and with the sole exception of public servants, arc at liberty to promote these in an organised way. Mr Forbes claimed that. th e dismissal threat of 1932 put the pub. lie servant in the same position as a private employee, but he must admit no private employee is debarred from political expression hi the way the State employee Ims been up to the present.

One Nationalist nientioiied that j the public servant had stiperan-' miation, as if that were a reason for depriving' him of his political freedom. There is no warranty for the presumption, that, efficiency would suffer if public servants were as free as others to take part in politics. Members of Parliament ar e themselves public servants, and the Nationalists would be apt to deny that their party badge is one of inefficiency. If tbev stood to be dismissed wit bout a hearing under the 1932 enactment, they would raise a ruction until the menace was removed. They ar (! pretty sure of 1 heir own partv funds, and are not anxious to let daylight into the source of these. The contributions are never publicly voted. There is no question of an enactment giving a Parly in power the legal right to have an opponent dismissed from private employment for criticism of that Party’s government. Why should there remain, therefore, a law giving such a legal power as against an employee of the State? There is no danger of public servants neglecting work just because they vote in their organisation a grant for a political object or party. The grant itself would be bill an effect, not a cause, and a denial of freedom to make such an expression of political conviction would he calculated Io breed disaffection where the expression itself would be calculated to remove disaffection. The Nationalists say that public servants would buy benefits from an administration if not forbidden in their organisations (o vote funds for a political party or object. Tn saying this they judge, not those upon whom they thus east a slur, but simply themselves.