PUBLIC SERVICE

Stratford Evening Post, Volume I, Issue 434, 6 May 1932, Page 2

PUBLIC SERVICE

MR. HOLLAND MOVES NOCONFIDENCE MOTION THE FOUR-YEAR PARLIAMENT Press Association.—Copyright. WELLINGTON, Thursday. Urgency was accorded the passage of the Finance Bill" in the House of Representatives this afternoon by 49 votes to 24:

■;, Moving the second reading, the Minister'of Finance (the Hon. W. D.' Stewtort;)! |effelted , to.- the abolition of ara'te accounts such as the HaurakV Plains settlement, the Westport Harbour and similar accounts. He said the 'object of ft'Ms' proposal was '■'- lb eliminate a number of small separate cash accounts that really belonged to the iConsolidate'd Fund'. There was no intention to use the money for any other r purpose and a. separate statement : of accounts would still' be presented annually.

Explaining the section of the Bill relating to unclaimed moneys, the Minister said the intention was to enlarge the scope of the Act for the purpose of reaching the accumulation of unclaimed funds, which the present Act did not touch, and to rectify the doubts that had arisen as to whether the present Act was applicable. Experience had shown that, without some mthod of inquiry, and .inspection it was impossible to ascertain, whether the Crown was receiving the full benefit of the Act. Section 5 of the Bill dealt with those education economies for which legislation was required. ;' Four-Year Plan Intended Referring to the extension of the life £>f the present Parliament, Mr. Stewart" said members spoke of the Russian five-year plan. If the five-year plan in Russia required five, years to be put into' effect then a four-year plan in New Zealand required four years to be put into effect. Mr. Stewart went on to refer to a clause relating to dismissal in the event of disloyalty in the public service. x ' " ■ Mr. J. O'Brien (Labour, Westland): Is it to stifle criticism? ~ Mr. Stewart: That is a matter of opinion. We have an excellent public service and we want to keep it. in as excellent a condition of loyalty to the public as possible. Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition): Is it aimed at any particular public servants? Mr. Stewart: No, it is laying down a broad principle, which I think members of the House will welcome, to ensure that members of the service are not distracted from their real duty and that they are not affected by elements which are not in the best interests of the community. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central):' What is the meaning- qf the clause where it says "to bring the Government of New Zealand into disrepute"? '."'..' Mr. Stewart said if a member of any service sought to discredit his own service and his own members it was not in the interests of the organisation or of the business. Mr. Stewart thought the House would realise after the matter had been debated that the clause had not been brought in too soon. ~ ■ Mr. W. NasH (Labour, Hut): Does it mean no public servant may criticise the Government's policy? ~ ( Mr. Stewart: I don't think itmeans anything of the sort. "Gratuitous Insult"

Mr. Savage characterised the clause making provision for the dismissal of disloyal public servants as a gratuitous insult to every member of the public service. "It refers to public servants 'likely to bring the Government into disrepute,' as if that had not already been done by the Government itself," Mr. Savage added. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Labour, Auckland* Suburbs) said civil servants had a right to discuss tlieir grievances, but the Bill wo!!l(] give the Government power to victimise any civil servant who commented on the way he wa,° treatd. If a civil servant misbehaved he could be dismissed, so what need was there for the clause. While children might suffer and teachers lose their employment, Mr, Mason said, all the Ministry was concerned about was the saving of its own skin,by extending Parliament's life. He quoted from an oversea legal jour, nal the opinion that colonial Governors would have power to dec!inn assent io legislation promoted bv a Government for the prolongation of its own life. Prime Minister on Disloyalty Mr. Forbes expressed regret that it was necessary to include in.the Bill the elause relating to dismissal for disloyalty in the civil service. He said New Zealand in tire past, had had a good , public service and one of which jt could be justly proud. The members of the service had received certain privileges, including the right to form associations which could place before the Government the requirements of their members in relation to wages an conditions.

The Prime Minister asserted these privileges were being flagrantly abused at the present time and that matter published in the Katipo (the organ of the Post and Telegraph Depart-

I ment employees) was stirring up disI content and disaffection in the minds of *!ie public service. He asked whether thp Government was to sit down and allow that. He declared the Katipo had deliberately misrepresented the position of the Government with the backing' of the Post and Telegraph Employees' Federation. Alleged Theat of Boycott The Prime Ministe»'.read a letter he had received from the Thames Chamber of Commerce complaining of • a circular issued by Mr. G. E. Hays ['(section secretary of the Post and I Telegraph Employees' Association) inI forming the organisation '•that certain bysmess men could not see their.way clear,,t<4 sign the petition circulated in TMtmes protesting against further salary-and wages re--1 ductions and adding fh'al it was the ih- ] tention ofi.-membop. Qf his organish- ' tion t 6: place .-a boycott against certain firms; ; The Prime Minister added ■ tlikthe had sent, to him three circulars over the name of Mr. Hays. When it was suggested that members of a public service so far forgot ' themselves in their obligations to 1 gerve the public as to fake up such an ' attitude against, members of the public thinking differently from them and employed a boycott, it was high tim

something was done to enable these men to be summarily dismissed. It was time members of the, public service of New Zealand realised that they were public servants. They were losing all sense of proportion and taking part in political gatherings against the Government. They were forfeiting the high esteem the Governments had always had for the public servants. It was a minority of extremists who were responsible; they had captured the machine and were bringing a stigma on the rest of the service. "If any attempt is made, by members of the service to terrorise the public it. will be dealt with immediately," Mr. Forbes concluded. "Unfair Treatment"

Mr. W. Nash asked whether the Prime Minister himself was not responsible for what had taken place. The public servants had been grossly and unfairly treated and given practically no redress. The Prime Minister had refused to see them. They had taken the next rational step and circulated petitions which were signed and presented to Parliament. La these petitions was set out a prayer asking that certain things siaouki not be done. The Government itself subsidised the chambers of commerce, which in turn attacked the Labour Party. Was it just, Mr. Nash asked, to use the public funds for that purpose? The Government was represented on the chamber of commerce.

"That position has been misrepresented to the honourable member, as other sections of the Government have been misrepresented by this branch of the public, service,", stated the Prime Minister, who rose to a point of order. He said he had received a request from representatives of the Post and Telegraph service for a practically immediate interview. He had had engagements requiring his attention; he had not refused to meet the deputation, but had simply stated he could not receive- it at once. He had intimated he would do later and had actually met the deputation. i : Deference to Banks

Mr. H. Atmore (Independent, Nelson) said the Government had shown deferential approach to the hanks in regard to taxation, hut had shown no such deferential approach in regard to treatment, wages and the education system. '. It seemed those in; control had no ideals, hut considered only expenditure on education. Mr. Atmore declared expenditure'on defence could still he pared down in the interests of efficiency of the education system. The National Expenditure Commission had been unfair in its reference to the school age. 1 had referred to a recommendation by a British commission that the age of admission should he six years, but it had not stated that the recommendation had been rejected by the British Government. New Zealand was lagging hopelessly behind in education. Mr. Atmore quoted statements by authorities that entry at the age of five led to superior achievement. No-Confidence Moved

The Leader of the Opposition moved: "That in view of the proposals in the gill to extend the |ife of Parliament, penalise children In public schools and impose penalties oil public servants In addition to other features of the pill, the application of which would impose heavy disabilities on both institutions and persons, this House has no confidence in

the Government," Mr. Holland declared the Govern ment should not extend the life Oi Parliament unless it had a mandate to do so, and it had no such mandate Jt was depriving the people of constitutional redress. They woulfl not be able to' secure' such redrew for four years. Then the Govern ment wondered that there were de mOiistratiim It complained of tin possibility of lawlessness.. If Jl does occur—and I hope it wen't=-n will be the direct result of the Government's Action." Mr. Holland declared the Government's proposal f j destroy apprenticeship contracts would vender it possible for the careers of boys in B jdj)ecj trades to be completely wrecked, The Leader of the Opposition went on to refer to the clause proposing the dismissal of public fiervantfl fu disloyalty. The Prime Minister had produced a communication fiom J chamber of commerce in a small cent?e in New Zealand, Mr. Holland submitted Out the clause as phrased could have no ftpjllicfttlofl <° lh ; Thames case, in which mm ff&S »° question of inciting, procuring 0* ew« couraging grave acts of violence or lawlessness.' Voting for Labour Mr Forbes had referred almost with'tears In Mb eyes ,0 m ? mh f™ or the Public Service voting for the Labour Party. Mr. Holland asked it he was going to make voting .tor the Labour Party an act. of seditiom Was he going to suppress the Kati o to criticising the Government; Itwas not the meaning oi the r nm ; Minister's remarks he must 1 uve been uttering nonsense and loolisn 11 The clause referred to the possibilitv'of 'a public servant bringing the •Government of New Zealand in o disrepute. ' Was it possible, Mr. inland asked, for a public servant (6 clo that? Would not the policy ui the Government, do more to produce such a result than anything any publte servant could :do? Why du not the 'Government propose to de*y with newspapers which had starred de Groot of New South Wales because of actions which might wed have h'd to lawlessness? Members approved of the New Guard, yet Campbell, its leader, was irresponsible revolutionary New boutn Wales had.