THE PUBLIC SERVICE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21641, 11 May 1932, Page 5

THE PUBLIC SERVICE

QUESTION OF LOYALTY association With labour MINISTER’S FORCIBLE SPEECH (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, May 10. “ Although some members of the Opposition attempt to make light of it and eay that it was only an indiscretion, in my view the Thames incident ■was one of the gravest political scandals that has ever occurred in New Zealand in my memory,” declared Mr Downie Stewart, in the House early this morning when replying to the debate on the Finance Bill and dealing trenchantly with disloyalty in the public service. “Mr Barnard has asked,” said the Minister, “ whether it was fair to prohibit the members of the public service from taking part in politics.” Mr Barnard: Or whether they will be prohibited from joining a political party? “ They always have been,” Mr Stewart said. “It is a recognised thing with the service.” Mr Holland: How is it they are allowed to join the Reform Party ? Another Labour member: Yes, and sit on committees.. Mr Stewart; They should not have been allowed. It has always been regarded as a cardinal virtue of the public service that it is free from party politics and that it renders loyal service to what- ’ ever party is in power. It is the pride and glory of the service that it makes no discrimination between parties, and that spirit has been maintained by the ' public service in New Zealand with exceptions here and there. Mr Holland: Not exceptions. It was the general rule 10 years ago, when the public service supported the Reform Party. Mr Stewart referred to the dismissal from the service some years ago of one M'Culloch, who had maintained that he was entitled to take part in politics and that public servants should not be deprived of their rights. Sir Joseph Ward had then explained the complete impossibility of allowing public servants to be swayed in their loyalty, and there was no doubt it would be highly unwise to allow the service to side with any party when it had to serve the public without discrimination. When ,Mr Stewart referred to the Thames incident Mr Holland interjected: *‘lt was an isolated case.” > “It was isolated by no means,” the Minister said. “It has obtained in all parts of New Zealand.” Mr Barnard: What, the boycott f How can you prevent it? Mr Stewart: Yes, the boycott. 1 have heard only recently that it is going on in Dunedin. It is a matter of the utmost seriousness for the whole future of the public service and the proper conduct of public business. It is impossible to suppose that such a thing can be allowed to go on. Not only has it been operating ir various parts of New Zealand, but I say this: That those officers who took part in it did it not in their own time, but in the course of office time, and the propriety of it was, so far from being questioned by the executive, approved by the executive in Wellington. The Minister said the Labour Party had tried to discredit the value of the evidence, stating that it came from the Chamber of Commerce, but they ignored the fact that the evidence was conclusive and clear. The significance of this boycott was that it occurred in the public service. If others were to -be allowed to conduct boycotts for their own parties that was a matter which the rival sections of the public might be able to fight out among themselves. So far as he could see the Opposition was openly inviting certain sections of the public service to join it in the steps being

taken by demonstrations, and otherwise to protest against the Government’s action and call on it to resign. “I want to say quite frankly that the Opposition is playing with fire when it plays that’game,” he said. “It is playing a most dangerous game, which it will regret in years to come if it allows any section of the public service to link up with it. The Leader of the Opposition knows that one of the public service organisations has practically made the Trades Hall its headquarters in Wellington, and holds its meetings there.

Mr Holland: You would not hold that an offence?

Mr Stewart: No; but it is a very indiscreet thing to do; it gives an indication that one section of the public service is linking up there. In England in 1927, the Minister proceeded, the British Government had prevented any public service organisation from having any connection with an outside organisation, and he had been told that certain sections of the service in New Zealand would web come a similar move here in order to protect themselves. “ I believe the public will recognise in this case that the information of the Government was sufficiently serious to render summary action necessary,” said Mr Stewart, “ and that they will believe that the Government will act fairly, reasonably, and justly. .It will not alienate the whole of the public service by adopting an arbitrary and unreasonable law, and the great majority of the service must realise the wisdom and necessity of what is being done.” “It has been stated that this clause is designed to deprive civil servants of their rights, and that such legislation is in itself an insult to the civil servants of the Dominion,” said Mr Stewart. “ The answer to that complaint is that the vast majority of the civil servants are quite indifferent to the legislation because they know it has no application to them at all. They are people who do their daily work honestly and efficiently, and are quite undisturbed when such laws are passed to cope with the very few misguided people who might imperil or seek to imperil the good name of the service. Moreover, if it is an insult to the public service to • pass such a law as this it is equally an insult to the whole, community to pass laws prohibiting theft or murder, but of course the ordinary citizen is not concerned because he knows that these last-men-tioned laws have no application to him, and similarly no public servant is disturbed by laws which he knows cannot possibly apply to him, and he carries on his daily work without any regard to such legislation. Members of the public service know well enough what is the object of this legislation, and I suppose that a large majority of them regard it as being passed to maintain the high reputation and great traditions of the service. It is, therefore, in my view, quite unfounded and fallacious to suggest that the legislation is aimed at the public service in the way the Opposition has suggested.” It was most conspicuous, added Mr Stewart, that the Labour Tarty refused a hearing to anyone who said anything against it. When the Prime Minister was speaking on the previous Saturday he could hardly be heard above the roar from the Opposition benches. That was a more brutal form of closure than any other. The right of free speech was apparently not conceded by the Labour Party. The Minister instanced particularly the attitude adopted in the House by Mr Semple, and he asked what chance anyone would have in speaking against his wild harangues and demagogic cries. He was speaking to the gallery the whole

time, and challenged Government members to debate with them on the public platform, but it was safe to assume that no one who opposed Labour’s viewpoint would be given a chance to argue logically and calmly while the Labour Party persisted in playing on the passions of the people. AN AUCKLAND DENIAL (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 10. The chairman and secretary of the Auckland section of the Public Service Association state emphatically that so far as their association is concerned there has never been any suggestion of a boycott being imposed on any section of the community. The public .service had grievances, but the association had always adopted constitutional methods of seeking redress. THE ALLEGED BOYCOTT ASSURANCE BY THAMES TEACHERS. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, May 10. The executive of the New Zealand Educational Institute, after investigation of the Prime Minister’s allegations that teachers had participated in the Thames boycott, gives Mr Forbes “ a definite assurance that the Thames branch, so far from joining in such a movement, has not even discussed it or had a meeting at which it could haw been discussed.’