The Press TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1943. External Affairs And Public Service

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23968, 8 June 1943, Page 4

The Press TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1943. External Affairs And Public Service

The External Affairs Bill put through its final stages in the House of Representatives on Friday has one thoroughly bad feature; appointments to the staffs of New Zealand’s oversea representatives are excluded from the control of the Public Service Commissioner. The Opposition had at least some inkling of the importance of this provision, but unfortunately did not press its amendment on the subject to a division and did not put the case for the amendment nearly as strongly as it could have been put. The Prime Minister’s defence of the bill as it stood was an assertion of the “ absolute necessity ” for the Government to be “able to appoint “ any ’’ suitable man to “ the job.” But that assertion is beside the point. It was not contended by the Opposition, and it would not be contended by anyone familiar with the situation, that appointments to the staffs of New Zealand Ministers oversea should at present be made exclusively from the ranks of the existing Public Service. Since the Public Service has not in the past attempted to select and train men for diplomacy, it would probably oe unable to find enough men with the necessary qualifications. That, however, is not a reason for excluding the Public Service Commissioner from any say in such appointments; nor is it a reason against bringing the new diplomatic service under the general control of the Public Service Commissioner’s Office. There are at least two weighty objections to giving Ministers of the Crown an unfettered right to - make appointments to oversea positions. One is that the diplomatic service may become a field for political patronage. To say this is not to accuse the present Government of being any worse than its predecessors in the matter of official appointments. The plain truth is that whenever Ministers have the right to appoint they tend to favour those of their own political colour; and there is no example in the history of this or any other democratic country, of an efficient State service being administered on the patronage principle.

The second objection to excluding the new diplomatic service from Commissioner control is that it further complicates the already formidable problem of co-ordinating the activities of the various State services. A diplomatic, service is not, or should not be, something apart from the ordinary departments of State. Its activities will touch their activities at a multitude of points. It should therefore work in close liaison with them; and officers should be freely interchangeable. This will not happen unless the diplomatic service is under the same general control as the departments of State. A diplomatic service selected by political patronage and working in isolation from the administrative machine as a whole will not be efficient. But it does not follow that removal of these weaknesses will in itself make a diplomatic service efficient. The important point, and one which was barely mentioned in the debate, is that diplomats have to be trained. “ The whole of New Zealand," said the Prime Minister, “ should be the “ field from which to make such “ important appointments.” But merely to widen the field of selection is not enough. Public servants may not always have the specialised knowledge that must qualify, say, good commercial attaches to a Legation. It is equally true that business men, untrained in public administration, will seldom make good commercial attaches. There is now no country of any diplomatic status which does not regard diplomacy as a vocation requiring careful and specialised training. The object to be aimed at, moreover, is the creation of a diplomatic service from which, in due time, it will be possible to select not merely the staffs of Ministers and. High Commissioners but Ministers and High Commissioners themselves. In the past, as a member of the Opposition pointed out, the High Commissionership has been given to “a tired “ Minister ” for whom “ some other “job has had to be found.” The practice of selecting oversea representatives from the Cabinet is unsatisfactory for the further reason that in external relations continuity of policy is essential; and there can be little continuity when the High Commissioner or Minister is likely to go out of office whenever there is a change of government.