DOMINION PARLIAMENT

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18631, 9 May 1932, Page 7

DOMINION PARLIAMENT

DISLOYAL SERVANTS. BITTER OPPOSITION VOICED. AT. GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL. . (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Sunday. In the House of Representatives last evening, when defending the c the Finance Bill giving power for the summary dismissal of 'disloyal officers ■ hi the Civil Service, the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes deolared: “The Government is determined to see that the Public Service does not enter into politics. ... To cover cases of trade boycotting, such as have occurred at Thames, the Government has slightly amended the clause by inserting the word tice," making that part of the clause read that dismissal shall be the penally for anyone 11 guilty of conduct calculated to incite, procure, or encourage grave acts of injustice, violence, lawlessness or disorder. “ We were led to believe that tins clause is to determine how a civil servant shall spend his reduced wages, said Mr J. A. Lee (Labour— Grey Lynn) in opening the discussion. “The sole reason we have been given for »t is that some civil servants have decided to transfer their trade from their enemies to their friends. No appeal Is to be allowed a civil servant who may express views contrary to kthe Government in power. Mr W. E. Barnard (Labour — Napier) described the clause as unBrltlsh, in every respect. In essence, the clausa meant that a civil servant could be summarily dismissed and forced to forego his superannuation rights merely on the decision of the appointing authority, who, some oases would be the Public Service Commissioner. One would think the country was in a state of revolution, and that the Civil Service, above everyone else, w'as implicated. Discussing the Government’s proposal to insert the word “ injustice ” in the clause, Mr Barnard emphasised the exceptionally wide range of the word and the enormous power it put into the hands of the appointing authority. It was not a legal word at all. If some suitable word was required, what was wrong with “ injury ”? Mr Barnard said the notion of a boycott did not appeal to him, and he would do nothing to encourage it, but the disparity between what had happened at Thames and the immense powers in the clause could not be bridged except by a mind given over to panic. Mr Barnard believed that ample power already existed to deal with the practices of which Mr Forbes complained, particularly section 118 of the ■Crimes Act, which dealt with seditious offences. Complaint was made by Mr R. Semple (Labour —Wellington East) that the clause did not seek to protect business people who might he intimidated, but the Government, from what might be reasonable criticism. Mr Forbes was proceeding to deal with the Thames boycott inoident, when the Leader of the Opposition, Mr H. E. Holland, interjected, “ Was there not already plenty of power under the law to deal with anyone proved to have done anything wrong? Y No Private Employer Would Tolerate. Mr Forbes: No. Otherwise we would not be bringing this in. Continuing, Mr Forbes said a Government could not have any confluence that civil servants talcing up an attitute hostile to it would carry out their work loyally. No private employer would tolerate his employees placing a boycott on his customers. In such a case the employee would bedismissed straight away. Mr Forbes added that some members of Parliament had told him in connection with the petitions protesting against the wage cuts that they had been telephoned by people who said, In effect, “ Take no notice of my signature, as it was obtained under the threat of trade being withdrawn." “Public servants have the right to vote, but there is a regulation saying they shall not enter Into politics," said Mr Forbes. “ Yet we know the Labour Party has encouraged public servants to enter into politics. Extracts from the Katipo show how the Public Service is working hand in glove with the Labour Party. The time lias come to scotch that sort of thing. The men responsible will be dealt with as they would be dealt with by a private employer. “ Public servants should not do anything to bring themselves Into conflict with any seotlon of the community. I am quite confident members of the Public Service will recognise that It is muoh better that we should deal with the black sheep who are bringing the service Into disrepute. We want to try, if we can, to regain the old spirit which animated the service ” Mr J. O’Brien (Labour —Westland) V said the Prime Minister had at last revealed the real reason for the clause —lt was to deal with members of the service who preferred to bring their viows of the injustice of the Government before the House in a constitutional manner. “ When we find that sections of the. Public Service are becoming active politicians in their spare time,” declared the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, Minister of Employment, “ and that they aro attending political gatherings—” Mr Howard: Y’ou are letting it out now. Protecting the Service. “ I would point out to tho honourable member that ho is responsible, too," said Mr Coates. “We have only to take tho Easter conference to see what the Labour Party set itself out to -do. • There was a clear indication on the part of tiie party that in order to prevent the Government carrying Into effect what it believed to he essential if the country were to carry on ,it should organise the industrial section of the Public Service against the Government.” Mr Coates said ho was sure that the Government had the loyalty of the Public Service ns a whole. The. Government was not passing (lie clause because of any political desires. , mainly to protect tho Public Scrv'. 5 itself. “Wo can sec in 12 mentis' time whether the Government’s nehen can he justified or not,” lie added Half an hour before midnight- the closure was moved hv Mr i.jalcs. J’lic clause had tlien been under discussion for an hour and 50 minutes. The Government’s amendment h> insert the word “ injustice ’’ was adopted by 3D voles to 20, a .id the amendment by Mr Barnard, seeking to delete references to statements ininginsr the Government into disrepute, was defeated by a similar ma gin. Owing to Mr Smith leaving Iba Chair at five minutes to midnight, die

division on the clause has not yet hcen taken. THE CLAUSE PASSED. LABOUR AMENDMENT DEFEATED. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLIN'GTON, Monday. The House of Representatives went into committee this morning on the Finance Bill. The amendment moved by Mr F. W. Schramm *( Labour— Auckland East), seeking to make provision for the. right of appeal in connection with the clause dealing with the dismissal for disloyalty in the Public Service was rejected by 30 votes to 20 and the clause passed by -irt voles to 10. in the division, Messrs 11. Atmore (Independent-—Nelson), A. .1. Stallworthy (GovernrnOnl —Eden), and H A. Wright (Government —-Wellington Suburbs), joined Labour members in voting for Mr Schramm's amendment, and Messrs Almorc and Wright voted against the clause itself, Mr Stallworlhy being absent from the chamber.