PUBLIC SERVICE TESTS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 210, 3 August 1940, Page 9

PUBLIC SERVICE TESTS

REPLY TO COMMISSIONER. ASSOCIATION’S VIEWS. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Aug. 2. “Representatives of the association maintain that the understanding arrived at with the Prime Minister (lit. Hon. P. Eraser) and the Minister of Railways (Hon. D. G. Sullivan) was that all efficiency tests were to be postponed in the meantime,” said the general secretary of the New Zealand Public Service Association (Air F. W. Millar) in a statement which he issued to-day on behalf of the executive committee of the association. The statement is as follows: “The association deplores the fact that the Public Service Commissioner should have seen fit to publish such a provocative, and in some, directions misleading, report concerning efficiency tests in the Public Service at the moment when negotiations are proceeding between the Public Service Commissioner and the association at the express request of the Prime Minister, with the object of endeavouring to find a solution satisfactory to both parties. PREMIER'S ATTITUDE. “It was laid down by the Prime Minister at an interview that, in the event of a failure to reach a common satisfactory resolution, separate representations were to be made by both sides to liimseif, when Cabinet would determine exactly what was to be done. “The first sign of cleavage between the Public Service Commissioner and the association after these arrangements were agreed to was the astonishing statement by the Public Service Commissioner that efficiency tests for the general division had not been suspended, although neither by word nor inference had any reference been made at the interview to exclusion from suspension of those tests. The general secretary immediately communicated with the Prime Minister pointing out that any question of a section of efficiency tests being proceeded with when the whole matter was to be considered do novo, seemed to create an impossible position, and asked for the Prime Minister’s interpretation of the decision arrived at. “The Prime Minister’s reply was to the effect that it was agreed that the whole question of efficiency tests should he discussed at the conference. He considered the point raised was one for discussion at the conference. Although the proceedings between the Public Service Commissioner and *thc association are progressing satisfactorily on the whole, the Public Service Commissioner is still persisting in proceeding with his examinations for the general division, so the view of the Prime Minister has so far proved optimistic.

STRONG EXCEPTION. “One of the comments in the report to which the association takes strong exception is: ‘lt will be not unknown that the project as it concerns the clerical and professional divisions has not been without some opposition.’ This is most misleading and wrongly implies that our opposition has been confined only' to tho efficiency tests for clerical and professional groups. This definitely is not so. Our very strong aud earnest opposition was and is related to all groups—clerical, professional -and general. “The only differentiation we have made at any time between the professional, clerical, and general divisions was that, on the advice of our solicitors, we questioned the legality of the Commissioner’s method employed to introduce tests for tho clerical and professional divisions, though there was some doubt in the association’s mind as to the legality of the regulations relating to the tests for the general division. The legal points, however, at the suggestion of the Prime Minister, are not being pressed by the association in view of the negotiations. “In his whole report the Public Service Commissioner ignores the fact that there is an important proviso to the association’s very strong opposition to tho efficiency tests. He makes no reference whatever to the fact that the association’s claim was for the ‘withdrawal of the efficiency tests in their present form,’ and thereby provides the false impression that the association’s opposition is tho stumbling block to the maintenance and development of full efficiency in the public service. SMALL RESPONSE. “The first’syllabus for the efficiency tests for the general division appeared in March, 1939, and the examination was held in December, and yet a mere 134 Public Service employees were prepared to present themselves for examination under the conditions laid down—not 2 per cent, of the permanent staff —and most of these employees were upon or close to the salary barrier that had been imposed by tho Public Service Commissioner which he proposed could not be proceeded beyond except by passing the efficiency tests. “There are more than 20,000 public servants under commissioner control, over half that number being permanent employees, . including thousands of general division employees, yet on the results attained by this handful of employees lip has complacently proceeded at length, seemingly in an attempt at justification of the introduction of ‘tests’ to underwrite the efficiency of the whole of the public service. He indulges, in such remarks as ‘Too great a number belie their presumptive efficiency. The self-satisfied, the unctuous, the lazy, will resent it. Somo were frankly too lethargic.’ “A different story this is to that contained in somo previous reports

where the efficiency of the service was extolled and a feature made that one out of every three of the clerical and professional division possessed University degrees or law and accountancy examinations. MEMBERS’ OPINION.

“The most objectionable part of the report so far as the Public Service Association is concerned is the last sentence in the following paragraph: ‘lt is not an easy matter for the central personnel authority to ascertain with exactitude what is in the minds of officers generally on any particular policy. The evidence of their own organisation is always entitled to the utmost weight. In this case the organisation is strongly opposed to the institution of efficiency tests and purports to represent i I ,elf as expressing the views of the majority of its members. Apart from the fact that the organisation says so, wide inquiry both by the Commissioner personally and by his senior officers lias failed to elicit any evidence that would even colourably substantiate the claim that the organisation makes.’

“This last sentence is a gratuitous assumption. The executive feels that is an unwarranted attack on our association and a questioning of the good faith of its executive officers. At no time have we approached the Governments or the Commissioner when we did not feel our representations were in keeping with the opinion of the majority, of our members, and in no instance was this more so than in the case of our objection to the imposition of efficiency tests in the form proposed by the Commissioner as tile torrent of Press protests at the time provided abundant evidence.

“Incidentally, the heaviest weight of protest came from public servants who have the credentials encouraged in the past—University, accountancy and law professional—and who were having further tests superimposed upon them. Much more could be said, but we feel that, having made our iirotest, we should leave it at that because we realise that great issues overshadow everything else there days,, so much so that it is a cause for wonder why the Government and the Commissioner do not forthwith decide to forget the efficiency tests altogether until after the war.”