The Dominion THURSDAY, FEBUUABY 16, 1911. PUBLIC SERVICES CONTROL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1053, 16 February 1911, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, FEBUUABY 16, 1911. PUBLIC SERVICES CONTROL.

Ix Christchurch the other day a Mr. Hollis, a Labour member of the New South Wales Assembly, and the Secretary of tho Federated Council of the Engine Drivers' Associations of Australia, was persuaded to speak up in favour of the Ministerial'control,of the railways. Mr. Hollis is the first Australian visitor who has spokon in favour of the Aew Zealand system as against tho Commissioner system which is nowuniversal in Australia, and for that reason alone he is worth a moment's notice. -Ho knows, of course, that tho fighting unionism that ho stands for and that ho has been recommending to .New Zealand railway men is. much moro likoly to obtain undeserved benefits from a Minister or a_ Government than from a Commissioner who is responsible to Parliament as a wholo. If Mr. Holms had admitted this frankly, all would have beon well—ho would not havo eajd more than has already been said t in effect, by Mr. Veitch, the president of tho Amalgamated Socioty of Railway Servants. -Ho ondeavoured, however, to make out his case on'other grounds, with results that vrerc simply ludicrous. How competent he is to discuss tho question'from tho-point of viow of pubpolicy, winch is tho only viewpoint that matters,' and how much value should bo admitted , in his observations, can bo judged from the absurdity of his opening statement to the ' lnte'rviowcr:.. "Your system is certainly tho best for tho simple reason that it is tho declared intention of your Government to make no profit out of the railways moro than to cover working .expensos and interest. _ /The remainder goes back to tho public in, tho remission of fares and freights." Tho Government's 'declared policy".!' Tho remission of fares and freights! Mr. Hollis may bo excused for knowing. nothing about tho matter, but ho cannot do excusod for talking about it on a.basis of ignorance. Aswo have said Mr. Hollis'b opinions arc worth this brief notice for! their conflict with every rcsponsiblo opinion that has gono upon record.- We havo shown over and over-again that Australia is almost _ astonishingly' solid ■ in its determination not fco : revert to tho syitem.i ofs,-Ministoriaivcontrol and its , : universally admitted-evils. • So far is' Australian opinion from favouring political control that it is oyorywhero taken for granted that nobody desires, its rc-cstablishmont. The Molboiirno Age, when, conducting tho fiercest possible - campaign against the Commissioners last year, careful to insist that the Commissioner system must bo retained. The other day tho Federal Post-ma3ter-Gcncral told "a deputation of postal employees in Perth,' which advocated "tho abolition of the public sorvico commissioner.", not thnfc tho Commissioner ■-would bo' abolished, but that the Public Service Act would bo amended to give to public servants the right of appeal to tho Arbitration Act. Tho Melbourne Argus strongly condemned this proposal, and in its argument against it it unconsciously revealed that non-political 'controrts , nSardsd as an axionf'of'good 'go'vorMent. It did not .'trouble to urge tho : necessity of retaining Iho Commissioner with his essential authority intact: nobody disputes that necessity. Whit it was concerned about was what it considered the- great folly of handing_ over—not, be it noted, to tho Ministry—but to the Arbitration Court ono of .the Commissioner's functions. Wo need not reproduce its arguments just now, as tliey aro not to our present point, but we may quote the main .promise, which is not in dispute. "At present," says tho Argus, "the authority of tho Commonwealth is in great measure entrusted to tho public sorvico commissioner, for tho ovils of immediate political control have been very sharply realised in Australia." That is. what you will constantly find all the responsible newspapers and public men saying, Australia has ■experienced, .and has in most cases escaped from, the evil system that flourishes in New Zealand. Mr. Hollis's foolish attempt to uphold that bad system only serves to emphasiso tho determination of tho Australian people to prevent the, reentry of Ministerial autocracy' in respect of tbo public services, with its necessary accompanimont of nepotism, log-rolling, intriguing and wastefulness;