POLICE FORCE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8559, 23 October 1913, Page 8

POLICE FORCE

THIRD READING DEBATE QUESTION OF APPEAL BOARD. Tho Hon. A. L. Herdman moved the third reading of tho Police Force Bill. Mr G. Witty (Riccarton) observed that the Minister might have got up and thanked the Opposition for amending his bill. It had been considerably improved by tho amendments proposed by tho Liberals. Sir Joseph Ward expressed regret that one amendment which had been proposed had not been accepted by tho Hon. Mr Herdman. He referred to the granting of an Appeal Board for tho police force. This attitude was different from that adopted by the hon. ■Minister when he was a private member. For an Appeal Board in the Post and Telegraph Department had worked well. The railways had had an Appeal Board, and the work in both these departments could not have been carried on so well hut for the fact that every officer felt that ho had the right of appeal. There had been a smoothness in the working which could not have existed without tho boards. Sir Joseph said ho had urged that the police should also have an Appeal Board, hut tho Hon. Mr Herdman had opposed it, but had given no reason. He could not conceive tho theory that they were so different from the position in which the post and telegraph employees found themselves. Ho knew that tho heads of departments were not always favourable to appeal boards, because their decisions were sometimes brought before the eyes of tho Minister and the public. But he was long enough in office to know that it was not a bad thing to have public opinion focussed upon a case of the appellant. It was a valuable check in the service, and a good thing for the Minister. For, after all, all men were human, even Ministers of tho Crown, and the latter were just as liable to err as anybody else. Why should a Minister refuse to have his decision reviewed by an impartial body, when a man’s welfare and that of his wife and children were dependent on the Minister’s actions? Ministers with tho best of intentions sometimes inflicted injustices quite unintentionally. On what grounds, then, had tho Minister for Justice changed his views since he became a Minister. THE POLICE ASSOCIATION. Sir Joseph Ward also considered a mistake had been made in not allowing tho police to form a non-political association, which would be recognised by the Minister. H© remembered the time when tho heads of department had said that an association of jiost and telegraph employees would be inimical to the service. But he had recognised the association, and had found it a valuable institution. When he was Minister for Railways, hq had laid it down as a stipulation that men with grievances should first submit their grievances to the executive of tho Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. In this way hundreds of appeals had been saved, for men of com-mon-sense could be trusted, as the executive of the society could, not to send on to the Minister trivial and frivolo’as grievances. All the time hq. had any knowledge of the two departments, he had never known either the Post and Telegraph Employees’ Association or the Railway Society doing an injury to tho Government. It was all tho other way—the associations had don© a great deal of good. Personally, he was in favour of a police association, outside politics, and of an appeal board for the police. He was exceedinglj sorry that such had not been entertained by the Minister. They had to remember, too, that there was a Civil Servants’ Association, and it was extremely valuable that the representative men in the service could put their views, without undue intrusion, before tho Minister. If a police association had been recognised, there would not bo the heartburnings which were alleged to exist owing to certain privileges granted to tho superior officers in that department. Such an association would moan the removal of friction and imaginary or real grievances. The rank and file of the police force should be working in harmony with their superior officers, and should he loyal to the Minister of the day. The Attorney-General should say to the police, “You are not an inferior class of men to those in other departments.” FARCICAL APPEAL PROVISIONS. Mr W. A. Vcitch (Wanganui) also protested against tho refusal of the Government to grant the police an appeal board. The provisions in the bill might lead tho public to believe that the police really had an appeal board. The trouble w r as that there was no real appeal hoard provided. The thing at present was farcical. He could not understand, either, tho refusal to recognise the Police Association. “The Minister for Justice is suffering from swelled head through wrong-fully-acquired power,” was Mr Payne’s comment on Mr Herdman’s attitude towards the police. “The Minister is wasting his time in this country. Ho should be managing the convicts in a Siberian mine.” Here was a most iniquitous bill, which, instead of bringing about harmony, would promote friction. Sitting on the safety valve war, how engineers went up to Heaven, and that was bow tho Tory Government would go up in smoke. Ho appealed for a six-day week for policemen, and every employee of the State should be properly paid and encouraged in his work. There was a time when the Prime Minister was a Knight of Labour and an agitator for the workers; but now he was an agitator for tho fat man. Mr J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) was pleased to note that the measure had been improved during its passage through committee. He approved as useful the provision that members of the force should retire on reaching th? ago of sixty-five. He regretted that the body dealing with police offence; was not more representative of each branch of tho service. Considerable difficulties arose ns between Hie detective and police branches of the service, and it might be found des : nahle ultimately to separate these branches. The hill went in the direction of better organisation of the police force, and the regulations would improve efficiency. He was pleased to seo the bill going on the statute book. Mr P. C. Webb (Grey) voiced his protesfT against the bill. and Urged that autocratic power should not reside with the Commissioner and Minister. Ho did not sec why the police should not bo allowed to organise.