APPOINTMENTS AS DEPARTMENTAL HEADS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21932, 19 April 1933, Page 8

APPOINTMENTS AS DEPARTMENTAL HEADS

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— You are to be congratulated on calling attention in your leader of April 17 to the practice that seems to exist that before anyoim can be appointed as head of a State department who is not already in the service of the State the Public Service Comniissioner must certify that of the applicants from within the service none is competent to fulfil the duties of the position. It is legitimate to give an applicant for such a post who is already in the service preference over outsiders, other things being equal, but not otherwise. The present practice renders the public service in New Zealand not the servant, but the master of the community, and it can only be described truly, even if bluntly, as a public scandal. It is notorious that in the past the Dominion has been deprived of the services of men of distinction because they were informed that they were ineligible, as a member of the service was regarded as able to do the work. What if this sort of thing were to happen in the appointment of a Director of Education? To choose a Director of Education because he is merely able to do the work is as ludicrous as choosing an artist to paint a picture because he is able to paint. For this position there should be open competition from within the service and from without it and from within New Zealand and without it. Just as, other things being equal, an applicant from within the service should have preference over outsiders, so also an applicant from within New Zealand, but other things being equal, _ preference over applicants from without New Zealand. An eminent man in education' who has lived in New Zealand has the advantage that he already knows our system and people and is already known by them. Without casting reflections on any past appointment to this position, surely it should be asserted boldly that the present principle on which chief appointments are made in the public service is inherently bad and should not be continued. This letter is not written with a view of promoting the interests of anyone likely to apply for the post, as I have no knowledge about possible applicants.—i am, etc., Stuart Moore. April 18.