POLITICAL FREEDOM

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 61, Issue 4320, 16 August 1940, Page 2

POLITICAL FREEDOM

POSITION OF THE CIVIL SERVANT. THE QUESTION ANSWERED. The Labour Government, in the first year of office, writes Hon. W. E. Barnard, wiped out the famous section 59 of the Finance Act, 1932 which, in effect, had prevented Civil Servants from indulging in political activity. Under the Political Disabilities Removal Act 1936, this section was repealed and the original political rights of Civil Servants were not only restored, but extended. To-day, however, there is evidence that some of our Civil Servants are not altogethei certain of their political position. The liberating Act of 1936 is still on the Statute Book; it is still in force. Why, then, should there be any uncertainty? We were at peace in 1936, whereas we are at war now. And one may express views and belong to organisations in peace time, but be no longer free to do so after war has commenced. Even if a particular body, e.g., the Communist Party, is not formally declaredfillegal, loss of job, or at least social ostracism, is almost certain to hit the man who now says that he is a Communist, or who talks in favour of Communism. The real reason for the hostility is that the Communist is out of step with the country’s war effort, or that what he says or does is considered subversive. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Communist Party is a very small political group. All this may seem perfectly obvious, but it is necessary to state the position, because the Democratic Labour Party is a small political party in Parliament (though with rapidly growing support outside), and a few people here and there, including Civil Servants hesitate to join up with the D.L.P. because of possible victimisation.

For the moment I am concerned with the Civil Servant, and I wish to .say frankly that I feel confident no good grounds exist for the doubts which may trouble his mind if he is hesitant about linking up with the Democratic Labour Party. Let us have a peep into the pages of Hansard on the occasion of the debate on the Political Disabilities Removal Bill, as it was then. It was introduced by the late Prime Minister, Mr M. J. Savage, on August 4th, 1936. Mr Thorn (Thames), strongly condemned the law of 1932. “In 1932,” he declared, “because Civil Servants had the audacity to defend themselves against a Government that was pursuing a hostile policy of inflicting salary cuts, section 59 was incorporated in the Finance Act of that year. That section provided that any Civil Servant would be subject to summary, dismissal if he said anything that was likely to bring the Government into disrepute. What a monstrous piece of legislation!” Mr Schramm (Auckland East) summed up clearly the aim of the Bill. He said, “We wish to give the members of the Civil Service the right to stand for Parliament, to criticise, and to spend the funds of their organisation as they please—in ether words, we wish to give the members of the Civil Service the same rights as are possesed by those who are not in the Civil Service.” And Mr Savage, in concluding the debate on the second reading of the Bill, stated that “we do not require to go back to the Middle Ages for guidance. All we need do is reason calmly to discover whether it is not possible or desirable to give to the public servants facilities for expressing themselves as citizens identical with the facilities provided to other citizens. That is the whole point .... I may back the Wrong horse, but that is my privilege.”

The attitude of the Labour Party was quite clear in 1936. I have not discovered any- evidence that it denies to the Civil Servant to-day what it so strongly affirmed then. He is still free to enrol in the political party of his choice, whether it be Government, Nationalist, or Democratic Labour. The only proviso is that he keep in line with war legislation; that he says and does nothing to obstruct the country’s war effort; but obviously that is a duty which rests on every citizen, whatever his political persuasion. It is a duty altogether independent of party politics. “I may back the wrong horse, but that is my privilege.” Exactly! And if any citizen, including the public servant, is charged with the offence of being a member of the Democratic Labour

Party, it should be enough to remind his accuser of the vital principle expressed in this simple statement. Some reader may object, “This is all very well, but it is only your personal opinion.” Well, I have referred the point to the Public Service Commissioner, Mr T. Mark, who assures me that, while he is concerned to see that the Civil Servants under his control obey the law, and in particular do and say nothing subversive, he is not at all concerned about a man’s political views or about the fact that he belongs to a political party; and Mr Mark offers no objection to my reporting this statement. I have not consulted the heads of the Railway or Post and Telegraph Services, but I have no doubt whatever that they would, if necessary, endorse the views expressed by the Public Service Commissioner.