PUBLIC OPINION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8608, 19 December 1913, Page 11

PUBLIC OPINION.

THE RETIRING AGE To vho Editor “N.Z. Times.” Sir, —I should say that you have done a groat benefit to tho Civil Service by drawing public attention to tho want of uniformity—not to put it too strongly—that has boon shown in tho retirement of officers who have reached the ago of sixty-five years. There has boon no compunction at all shown about tho officer in a humble position; he has been fired out without any delay or consideration for the circumstances of the case. In your article on the subject you say that our representatives in Parliament, to whom we should look for redress, have parted with their rights; to use your exact words, “'The service has been deserted by the Government, which should bo its protector.” Query; Have tho representatives of tho people parted with their rights ? One is rather inclined to think- that it is only a section of them who have been deprived of their rights—That is the Opposition, ifor if you turn up “H.’’ 14, on page 38, you will notice under the heading, “■List of officers to be retired from tho Public Servce,” tho first name is J. Strauchon, Under-Secretary Lands Department, salary £BOO, date of retirement March 31st, 1914, date when, notice given 9/5/13. One can hardly suppose that the Public Service Commissioner would-make a definite statement like, that if -it were not correct. Now, it is well known that the Undersecretary did not get tho notice referred to, anc the question arises: Who did? Did tne Minister for Lauds get if and hold ,it back until a convenient'season? But why should he? Is not tho Civil Service free from political control? Officers of the Lauds Department are very anxious to know tho reason for keeping tho Undcr-Seb-retary’ bn for a year after ho has reached tho statutory age, and so seriously retarding tho promotion of men to whom protection has boon too long delayed. Does'the Civil Service Commissioner suggest that it is owing to tho outstanding ability of the present Under-Secretary, that he is being kept on; then, if not, what is the real re'ason ? Perhaps ybu may be able to persuade Mr Massey to explain what is tho “real square deal” reason.—l am, etc., “EQUITY.”