The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro." FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1934. THE “NEW DESPOTISM"

Southland Times, Issue 22474, 9 November 1934, Page 6

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. “Luceo Non Uro." FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1934. THE “NEW DESPOTISM"

There is one portion of Sir Apirana Ngata’s speech in the House which should be remembered by the members of Parliament and by the public, too, when it considers the report of the Public Service Commissioner, Mr P. Verschaffelt, who attempts to refute the criticism, originating with Lord Chief Justice He wart, that the “new despotism” is the Civil Service. Mr Verschaffelt defends the Civil Service, but obviously Lord Hewart had departmental chiefs, the junta of them, in mind when he spoke of them as despots. Sir Apirana Ngata, eloquently and effectively defending himself and his administration, shows us the same thing:

It is not the Ministers who rule New Zealand, it is the heads of departments. I know the business is bossed about one-tenth by the Minister and nine-tenths by the departments, yet it is direct action by the Minister that the Opposition is condemning.

No more damning statement has been made than this. Here is a man with long experience in the administration, though certainly a man defending himself, who puts into direct words what Lord Hewart has been saying,, puts into words what many people believe in their own hearts to be true. The bureaucracy has been entrenched in New Zealand, and part of that entrenching was effected by the legislation which put the Public Service under commissioners. Only a part, because any Minister can, if he so wills, counter the despotism of the junta, whether it affect the public or the lower ranks of the service,

by firm action which will make the Ministers nine-tenths bosses, instead of one-tenth. The Public Service Commissioner says that the criticism of the “new despotism” by the Civil Service is carelessly made by people who ignore the evolutionary change in administration which has necessitated the production of a mass of detailed regulation in the public interest. He adds that these demands have risen not from the Public Service, but from ’the people themselves. Theoretically he has much justification for his defence of the new system; but if Parliament delegates powers to departmental chiefs, which is what government by Order-in-Council involves,, it should keep a close watch on all developments to ensure that too much power is not used in this way. The system requires strong Ministers ready to see that the extension of these powers is accompanied by an efficient exercise of them, and by an adequate control of the Civil Service itself. Mr Verschaffelt refers in particular to the Electrical Wiremen’s rules as an example of the mass of detail regulation required by modern circumstances, but those who have to work under these regulations are not sure that the department involved is sufficiently careful in drafting or in interpreting them. Certainly there is small hope of Parliament being able to do any better, but when Mr Verschaffelt cites this example he is quoting what he knows to be an extreme case. On the other hand the criticism of the amount of government done by Order-in-Council in this country deals with cases where new offences are created. There is a demand, too, that Parliament should have better opportunities for the review of Orders-in-Council. Theoretically there is ample protection, but in practice there is very little, and it is by no means clear that the junta of departmental heads is always easy to deal with when the lower ranks of the service are involved. Sir Apirana Ngata’s striking statement should not be overlooked, and, as we have already said, it should be read in conjunction with the statements already made by responsible men about the “new despotism.”