The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, AUGUST 3, 1912. CIVIL SERVANTS “RIGHTS.”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8190, 3 August 1912, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, AUGUST 3, 1912. CIVIL SERVANTS “RIGHTS.”

I intend to consistently advocate that Civil Servants and railway officers should have full political and civil rights.—Mr Wilford.

It is perhaps a little unfortunate that the discussion in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon savoured more of electioneering than of serious consideration being given to the merits of an important question. Regard for votes rather than for any definite principle seemed to be at the back of more than one member’s contribution to the discussion, though it may, of course, be admitted that this does not necessarily imply insincerity. Giving, therefore, the several members who addressed themselves to the subject raised by Mr Wilford credit for desire to remove a real burden from the Civil Service and to do something of benefit to the iState, we are bound to confess that their main theory appears to us hopelessly bad. It may be said at once that the regulation which prevents a Civil Servant being member of such a body as a school committee is childish. Bub this is scarcely the point at issue, which, briefly, amounts to a proposal that Civil Servants should not be denied the rights enjoyed by other electors of taking an active personal part in political controversy, of participating in election campaigns, and, if elected, of sitting in the House of Representatives. This is what Mr Wilford means by “ full political rights,” and he confesses himself unable to see why such rights should not bo given and exercised. The reply is that the regulations complained of were designed for the purpose of protecting the Civil Service and with the object of, preventing a combination of _ circumstances that would seriously interfere with its permanency, its neutrality in administration, and its place in the scheme of government. This aspect of the matter was hardly touched upon, but Mr Isitt gives us to understand that “ if the old bugbear that Civil. Servants would have the right to criticise their superiors was the only argument against the suggestion, then there was no reason against the abolition of these disabilities.” There is, of course, room for difference of opinion upon most questions, and Mr Isitt must, therefore, expect to hear that there are at least some people in the community to whom this “ old bugbear ” appeals with considerable force. The Civil Service is composed of people charged with the duty of administering the State’s business on lines of which Parliament is the master. When the Legislature directs that the law on some public matter shall be of a given character the Civil Service undertakes the task of seeing that the law is carried into effect—whether it he in reference to finance, education, subjects coming within the scope of the police, the railways, and so forth. Now to us, at any rate, it seems monstrous to suggest that, say, the head of the Treasury, the AuditorGeneral, Inspectors of Police and constables, officers of the Post and Telegraph Department and the Railways, should be at liberty to get on to a public platform and indulge in _ wordy strife with one another, with Ministers and members of Parliament in regard to questions of public policy and administration. Is, it possible to imagine anything but disaster following a state of affairs which permitted the Inspec-tor-General of Hospitals to perambulate the country denouncing a Bill introduced by his Minister and condemning or praising members for voting in

any given direction ? Can anyone contemplate without dismay the possibilities of the Secretary to the Treasury contesting the seat occupied by the Minister for Finance, or of tbe Chief Law Draughtsman taking an active part in endeavouring to secure the defeat of the Prime Minister, of the General Manager for Railways acting as chairman of Mr Wilford’s committee at Petone?

The consequences of this sort of thing would be hideously bad, since it would inevitably make Civil Servants cither the pliant tools or the enemies of Ministers and Parliamentarians, am. would open the door to almost unthinkable abuse. In the affairs ol State Civil Servants occupy a ponfiden. tial relation to Parliament and the electors which should on no account be disturbed. That they labor under any '• disability ” by being excluded from participation in a turmoil that would destroy their status we do not for a moment believe. The “disability’'' spoken of is one of election, for if they do not like it they need not enter the service, and the fact that the number of applications for State employment is so great as wo know it to be affords an unanswerable argument to those who talk of “hardship” in this matter. For any feeling of resentment that a few irrepressible souls may happen to chafe under many compensations are allowed by the taxpayers. Tho wages paid by the State are, as a rule, on tho liberal side, and are forthcoming on due date; the provision for leave is not altogether ungenerous; the hours of labor can hardly be called excessiveretiring allowances are now the rule and cost the country a considerable sum. Comparison between the lot of the average Civil Servant and the average man “outside” performing analogous duties are all in favour of the former. It would add to neither the efficiency nor the dignity of the service if its members were allowed to project themselves into the hurly-burly of political strife, to quarrel with one another and their Ministers,'or to use their positions of trust for party purposes. A wise precaution has been taken against this, and we trust will be allowed to continue. Ministers were not in a position to take part in yesterday’s discussion, but it is not at all likely they will find themselves in any sort of agreement with Mr Wilford and others.