THE COURT OF REVIEW

Southland Times, Issue 22999, 19 September 1936, Page 8

THE COURT OF REVIEW

CHANGE IN PERSONNEL OPPOSED

GOVERNMENT’S POLICY CRITICIZED (From Our Parliamentary Reporter). Wellington, September 18. Strenuous opposition to any change of personnel in the Court of Review, which was established under the Rural Mortgagors Final Adjustment Act, 1934-35, was voiced by members of the Opposition during the committee stages of the Mortgagors and Lessees Rehabilitation Bill in the House of Representatives to-day. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Kaipara), whose remarks led to a warm discussion about “political appointments to administrative posts,” alleged that the Government was pursuing a general policy of removing members of all such institutions and replacing them with men friendly. to the Labour movement. The discussion arose over' consideration of Clause 13 in the Bill, which places members of the Court in the position of having vacated their offices, although eligible for reappointment. Mr Coates suggested that part of the clause dealing with this position was not necessary, since the legislation provided all proper avenues for removing and appointing members. “I think the inclusion of this provision is an indication from the Government that, as far as possible, it intends to remove the men on the Court and have an entirely new personnel,” said Mr Coates. “I think it is very unwise

to have any change of personnel in such an administrative body, which functions as part of the machine administering the legislation of the country. It is a matter of principle, as well. In fact, it seems to me that it is a new conception of party politics that when a new Government comes into office it removes the personnel of the administration in this way.” The Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash): What bunkum you are talking.

Mr J. G. Barclay (Lab., Marsden) You appointed your own friends.

Present Members’ Politics.

“Now we’re getting at the truth,” retorted Mr Coates. “The member for Marsden tells us in so many words that he will not be satisfied until his friends are appointed. The Minister and other members of the Government say that it is all bunkum, because they are also anxious to have their friends given appointments to the Court and the commissions. As for the present members, can anyone say what their political views are?”

Mr Barclay: Yes. The chairman of one commission was the organizer of your meeting up north. Mr Coates: I should say that that is a very good recommendation. Mr R. A. Wright (Ind., Wellington Suburbs) said that he had seen political appointments ever since he had been in politics. If the present Government made them it would be not better or worse than its predecessors. He did not believe in the spoils-to-the-victors system.

The Hon Adam Hamilton (Nat., Wallace) said that the Government had instituted something entirely new in wiping out all the existing appointments on the adjustment commissions by legislation. The Minister said that the whole test to be applied when reappointments were being made was that of competence. Good men would be reappointed but the Government must be in control of the position. He failed to see how the Government could be criticized for the removal of the men concerned, because it was taking power under the Bill to reappoint those who were found to be good men doing their job well. There was just as much capacity and integrity in members of the Government to do the right thing as there was in the members of the late Government. Amendment Defeated. An amendment by Mr Coates to delete the clause under which members of the Court of Review shall vacate office at the passing of the Bill was defeated by 41 votes to 13. Mr W. J. Polson (Nat., Stratford) moved an amendment to remove the clause abolishing the 39 existing adjustment commissioners. ■ Their dismissal, he said was slight on men doing excellent work and it savoured of the introduction of an American election.

Mr Speaker (the Hon W. E. Barnard), as member for Napier, said that the inference Mr Polson had drawn from the clause was unfair. It merely gave the Government an opportunity to review the position of each of the commissioners concerned.

The amendment was defeated by 36 votes to 14.