THE HOUSE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1220, 31 August 1911, Page 7

THE HOUSE.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT. QUESTIONS AND REPLIES. The House met at 2.30 yesterday. The following Bills iveie read'a first time:—Manukau Harbour Control (Mr. Poole), Auckland Harbour Board Ernpowi pring (Mr. Myers), Mosgiel Borough Empowering (Hon. T. Mackenzie). Mr. J. V. Brown (Napier) gave notice to introduce the Napier Harbour Board Lc-an Bill. Discussions on a grievance of territorials and on tho Coronation invitations are n>. ( oorted under separate headings. PRIVATE MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES. Sixty-two Ministerial replies to members' questions wero printed in a supplementary order paper yesterday, and in ordinary circumstances two houre of the afternoon sitting would have been devoted to a discussion of the replies, but tho House continued a debate on tho Coronation invitations, and an Ashburton local Bill until the dinner adjournment, CIVIL SERVICE REFORM. MR. HERDMAN'S BILL. Mr. A. L. HERDMAN (Wellington North), ia moving the second reading of tho Civil Service Reform Bill (which was discussed at some length on tho first ' reading) said the people of this country were divided into two sections. One section believed in tho termination of political influence anil patronage in tho Public Service, and tho other wished that those things should continue. The object ' of the Bill was to eliminate them. It had been urged against this Bill that it would establish an autocracy with a Commissioner at its head, but the true position ■ was that this official would be responsible • to the people through Parliament. In America a system similar to that pro-

posed iu the Bill had been established wider tho Federal Government, and was approved by both parties. Throe commissioners were appointed by, and could be removed by, the President, acting mi<ler tho ndvico of the United States Somite. So interested and fascinated were tho people of America becoming with this method of controlling the Civil Service that over 27 cities had adopted tho commission system of government. Commissioners were elected, and were subject to recall by a vote of tho people. In Groat Britain, generally speaking, appointments were made to the Civil Service by three Royal Commissioners. In Queensland, New South Wales, and the Commonwealth of Australia Iho Civil Service was controlled under 'the commissioner system. Those who believed in tho elimination .of political patronage supported the Bill. Information regarding the Civil Service was at present absolutely denied to the representatives of the people, who were the employers of the Civil Servants. In this country there was government of the Government, by the Government, for tho Government. There was no more completo aristocracy anywhere. The main object of the Bill was to take tho great body of public servants away from tho control of the Minister altogether, and place them under tho control of a commissioner, who should be got from outside tho public serrico altogether, a man who understood the science of business methods. He had no hope that tho Bill would bo passed in that Parliament, but it would certainly be passed eventually.

The Bill. Criticised. Mr. E. 11. TAYLOR. (Thames) opposed the Bill on- the ground that it would throw the whole Civil Service open to patronage.Mr. G. W- RUSSELL (Avon).considered that if the Bill were submitted to a plebiscite of the service it proposed to reorganise there would l>o an almost unanimous voto against it. The Bill was not needed. He asked the Speaker whether the Bill was'in order, and whether it should not be considered a money Bill. Tho Speaker rulsd that the Bill could not be arrested at that stage. Jlr. Russell continued that if passed tho provisions of the Bill would provoke a revolt of tho whole Civil Service. MV. Russell begged the Leader of the Opposition to get up and support the Bill, and soon afterwards declared that \i was the rottenest Bill ever laid before ParliaThe Hon. T. MACKENZIE, Minister for Agriculture, said that what surprised Jiim was the silence of thf< Opposition. Mr. Mackenzie, objected that if tho Bill were passed civil servants would bo appointed and controlled by a "Poou-Bnli" Commissioner, though Ministers would bo responsible for the work thev did. Was it likely that a Minister, whoso credit was at stake in connection with his work, and that of his Department would stuff his Department with incompetents? It would be impossible to' carry out the Civil Service on business lines. To attempt anything of tho kind would produce such hardships that the 'public would not enduro the innovation for six davs.

Mr. J. VIGOR BROWN (Napier) said tho railways had never been better mar.nged than at the present time. He suggested that MivHerdmau should withdraw tho Bill. The Prime Minister's Views. , Sir J. G. WARD said tho difference 1»tween the Public- Service of. this country to-day and its condition when tho friends of tho party opposite were'in power was the dilference between Paradise and the very opposito extreme that could bo named. The hon. member introducing the Bill had said that it would lead to a reduction in the public expenditure. Ho wanted to know if tho handing over of tho Public Service to a Czar meant that thero was to bo a programme of reductions of the most awful kind. Under Claiua 21 of tho Bill this Czar, whom it was proposed should replace tho representatives of this country, could put down a man approaching the retiring age, who was .getting a salary of .£.500 or .fijOO a year.to JCIOO or .£2OO. a year.. If this were done a reasonable time before tho retiring ago of tho public servant concerned, his calculated on. the reduced salary. 'The Chief Commissioner under tho Bill would be an autocrat o'ver whom no control could be exercised, and abuses, from tho point of view-of the rank and file, would be inevitable. . From what tho lion, gentleman had said, one would imagine that no check was exercised upon payments through public departments. As a matter of fact, there was a check in every instance. In America, railways, telephones, and telegraphs were p.il owned by. public companies. It was ridiculous to compare this country, with its State services, with America. The public service of this country was a good one. Ho believed that the peoplo'of this country were iu sympathy wit hthe system which existed, and.that both the people and public servants would be safer and better off than under any other system. Mr. D. M'LAREN (Wellington East) did not claim that the public service could not be improved. Thero was too much power in the liauds of the Executive in this country, and too little in the hands of tho people, but this Bill did not represent an attempt to get away from Executive authority. It was a proposal to substitute a more autocratic authority for that in existence. It meant substituting tho authority of an individual for that of Parliament.

Mr. J. HANAN (Invercargill) contended that tho Bill set forth tho doctrine that democracy could not govern. It was a reflection on members on both sides of the House. It was a sound democratic principle that power an dresponsibility should (Jo hand-in-hand.

Mr.'F. M. B. FISHER (Wellington Central) defended the Bill. If at the present time tho representatives of organised labour visited tho Prime Minister and asked for increased remuneration for oiie branch or another of the public service ho would have to give way.. This would bo impossible under control by commissioners. It was idle to contend that members wero not subject at the present time to pressure, by political organisations. A board of commissioners stood between tho politician and the people. He would support any Bill which would tend to prevent the possibility of abuse of power by an Executive.

Mr. R. B. ROSS (Pahiatua) opposed tho Bill.

Mr. HERDMAN, in reply, said it was not true that the passage of the Bill would involve retrenchment or (he lowering of wages. Tho Premier, in sneaking of reducing of salaries, bad quolcd. a section and ignored qualifying sub-sections. The , Commissioner could bo removed from office at any time by a vote of the House of Representatives. The Division, On a division tho Bill was rejected bv 3C votes to 18. Following is the division list:— Ayes (18): Allen, Dive, J. Duncan, Fishor, I'roser, Guthrie, Hardie, Herdman, Hemes, Iline, Malcolm, Massev, Newman, Nosworthy, Pearce, Scott G M. Thomson, Wright. Noes (3G): Arnold, Brown, Buddo, Bux- • ton, Carroll, Clark, Colvin, Craiuio Davey, Ell, Field, Forbes, Fowkls, Glover! Graham, Greonslade, Hanan, Ho'™ Isitt, Lawrie, Luke. 8... Mivenzio, T. kenzie, M'Laren, Millar, Ngata, Pa rota Poland, Russell, Scddon, Sidey, Smith Stallworthy, Taylor, Ward, Witty. The Houso adjourned at 1.15 p.m.