CIVIL SERVANTS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 185, 6 August 1936, Page 8

CIVIL SERVANTS

Participation In Politics GOVERNMENT’S BILL PASSED BY PARLIAMENT | Per Press Association | WELLINGTON, Aug. 5. The second reading debate on the Political Disabilities Removal Bill was resumed in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr. W. P. Endean (Opp., Parnell) opposed the Bill. He saict lhe public servant was a servant, not a master. When he became * member of Ptiuli&ment he became a master, and as a public servant in some departments he became acquainted with the affairs of his fellow citizens. Mr. Endean considered that civil servants should be free from politics. He thought it was a retrograde step and not in the best interests of the civil servants or of the citizens of New Zealand. Mr. J. Cotterill (Govt., Wanganui) said that he himself had been affected by the operations of the Electoral Act as it prevented him contesting the Wanganui, seat unless he resigned from the railway service. He approved the Bill and thought it was timely and would be welcomerl by the civil servants ol New Zealand and would give them the freedom enjoyed by every ether citizen of New Zealand. Hon. J. G. Cobbe (Opp., Oroua) said that if a civil servant were to contest a seat, against the Minister in charge ol his department, a certain amount of unpleasantness would be caused and it would not. help the Iriendly relations existing betwen the Minister and the department. He thought, too, that if a civil servant stood for Parliament and was defeated it should not be necessary that he should be reinstated to his old position but that the Public Service Commissioners should have the right to appoint him to some other position that would not incur monetary loss. Mr. C. H. Chapman (Government, Wellington North) said the number ol members of Parliament who had previously been civil servants was surprising. When he himself contested a seat and was unsuccessful he could not get back into the service and he did not want to see others in the same position. The Bill simply conferred on civil servants rights which should never have been taken from them. Hon. J. G. Coates said he could see no end of the difficulties in the provisions of the Bill now before the House. He referred to several civil servants who had contested seats and who had been reinstated. All thal had happened in the past, but was it wise that a civil servant who was serving public interests should have the same rights as others. It would be very awkward if the head of a department could oppose his Minister and quote from files to show that the Minister was wrong in reaching a certain decision. Such a thing had happened in Australia and the position was very invidious. It would be a peculiar thing if a Minister were to be subject to the whims of a departmental officer. He claimed that there were no disabilities of any logical consequence that could be raised concerning the public servant and his rights to-day. He said it was entirely wrong (hat the funds of the society shou'd be used for political purposes and it should be opposed. He contended it would be a dangerous thing if a civil servant were given complete freedom of speech and to extend the present 'position would be unwise. Reign of Terror. j Mr. J. G. Barclay (Govt., Marsden • said that in the last election camI paign opponents of the Government I were not. allowed freedom of speech I but supporters of the Government were. He said there was a reign of terror at that time and members ol the railway service were more or less compelled Io resign from Labour Party membership. He said that, if he went into a post office to buy stamps and asked tne boy behind the counter how he was, the boy replied, if anybody was about, "I am not. allowed to tell you.” Mr. T. H. McCombs (Govt.. Lyttelton) said the privileges that were given teachers and those in similar situations who were technically not civil servants but who were employees of lhe State, should be given all civil servants. The Prime Minister, Hon. M. J. Savage, in reply, said the Bill would be amended to overcome the point raised by Mr. Forbes that a civil servant, perhaps a postmaster, could hold his position and undertake an election campaign at the same time. He could not imagine any head of a department, contesting a seat and getting to the depths of referring to details of the department. He thought that would kill a candidate in the eyes of the electors. He could see no dividing line betwen the civil servant and the man in private life. He could see no reason why a civil servant should not be allowed to join the National Partv or the Labour Party if he so desired. The second reading was carried and the House went into committee to consider the clauses of the Bill. Compulsory Unionism. Speaking on the short title, Hon A. Hamilton (Opposition, Wallace) said that compulsory unionism was now the order of the day and a member had only one say regarding the disposal of union funds. He said there were some 1700 conscientious objectors petitioning Parliament protesting against compulsory unionism. They did not mind so much joining a union as having vt<- little say in the disposal of the union funds. Mr. Savage said he had talked all round the country that the Government would restore civil rights to civil servants, so it was no new thing. He claimed the Labour Party knew what the civil servant wanted and it was going to give it to them. Hon. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) said that Mr. Fc~bes had stated that the services of civil servants would be impaired if they took part in politics. Did he mean that the only reason civil servants gave good service was because their liberties as citizens were restricted? He referred to a circular sent to woolgrowers by the executive of the Reform Party in Christchurch asking for a contribu-