PUBLIC SERVICE BILL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1556, 27 September 1912, Page 8

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL.

READ A THIRD TIM£. : MORE OPPOSITION PROTESTS. : The Hon. A. E. HERDMAN (Minister for .Justice) moved ths third reading "of I tho Public Service Bill. i Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) said ho wished to make his protest against the j Bill, believing as ho (lid that it would engender in the Public Service a feeling of discontent-which happily did not now exist. He emphasised tht; fact that tho Bill did not apply to th& larger tranches of the Public Service. The Post and Telegraph Department was, he said, only to bo partly under the operation of the Bill, because a bargain had been struck with the head executive officer of the Post and Telegraph Department, and under this bargain, which was contained in a series of amendments, the Minister had proposed in committee that the officers of the Postal Department were to receive special consideration. It was an unholy bargain, but it was necessary for tho Bill, to liavo any effect at all, to embrace within its scope the 4000 officers of tho postal ■ service. The railways and other big services Were already exempted—and ho though this was iniquitous—so that it was necessaTy to justify the expensive T Commissioner and his colleagues, to drag in the Post Office by hook or by crook. During the short term that he had been in Ministerial office ho had to make a few appointments, more particularly those of medical inspectors of-schools, and in no single instance had any improper attempt been made to bring 1 influence to bear upon him. Surely it : was incongruous that a Government which had got into power on its professions in favour of economical admin--1 istration, should at the outset of its • career propose to set up a fresh Depart--1 msnt, and to pay three gentlemen salaries r . aggregating ,£3300 a year. What' was the ' saving to be made to the country under f the new scheme? His opinion was that i the Government were anxious to ?et rid 1 of the responsibility which should properly be theirs as a Government and as a t Cabinet. The talk of giving up patronago was all nonsense, for the possibilities of patronage as a party weapon were not 3 nearly so great as the country had been - informed. What tho Government ,wero 0 trying to do was to set,up a fence be--1 tweon the Government and -tho people. f. "It Was <lll«gical." Mr. J. A. HANAN (Invercargill) said 0 the setting up of Civil Service Cominissioners was an indication of tho opinion of the Government that democracy in J this country had been a failure—that tho * representatives of the people could not 0 safely be entrusted with the duty of J making appointments to tho State services. The Bill was taking away rights which ® should be possessed by tho people, and ' it was therefore anti-democratic. If tho t principle of Commissioner control were a K sound one, why had it been necessary - to exempt froin tho operation of the Bill r large section of the Public Service? It was illogical, he said, to make come missioner control apply only to the [-' smaller sections of the service. .In Australia railways and police were under the el control of the commissioners. The fact was that the Government,' having in mind :- tho great voting strength of the railway service, were afraid to put the men in it y under a commissioner. believed that e when the time of the Commissioner's appointment had .elapsed tho country would r be well pleased to bo rid of him. Mr. L. M. ISITT (Christchurch North) a said that ever since ho had sat in the JJ House, although it had been vaguely charged against the Public Servico that it was vitiated by political influence, and n full of inefficients, he had never heard one e word of evidence adduced to substantiate (1 those statements. He protested against the Bill because it was an autocratic, and o not a democratic measure. It purported to be a Bill to remove abuses, but ho >t would oppose the Bill because ho belioved y it would give rise to more virulent abuses. i'o Even Government members admitted that n the Bill was a bit of a gamble; it depended for its success on whether it was possible to get tho right men as Commissioners. Mr. H. G. .ELL (Christchurch North) said he would oppose tho Bill. Ho ,f agreed that it would bo inadvisable, if not if impossible, to put the Police and the Defence Departments under a Commissioner, .]! but the Government, to be logical, should 63 bring all the civil Departments, includto ing railways, under tho Bill. He believtd ed that the Ministers, although thoy Were 1S opposed to him in politics, would prove ie to he capable administrators of their Deio partments, and he saw no reason for apvr pointing more highly-salaried officers to la do the work Ministers were put in office and Jta

"Seething with Discontent." Mr. A, S. MALCOLM (CluHin) in answer to the argument that tho Government should put all tho Departments under the Commissioner, suggested that tho Government were right in trying Commissionei' control in the smaller Departments before putting the railway service under him. It was abundantly clear, although it was impossible to bring direct evidence in proof of it, that certain Departments of tho Civil Service were, seething with discontent. This was the best possible Teason for a change in tho method of administration. It had !;•: said that control by a Commissioner , would bo autocratic, but in point of fact, the administration by the Minister bad been the most autocratic control possible. Ministers had run their Departments altogether, keeping the House in entire ignorance, and against their judgment thero had been no appeal. During tho rogimo of the Liberal party these Departments had been controlled by Ministers who were nonentities, amiable or otherwise, and they had to bo endured because to have attempted to remove them might have wrecked the party. Now, there would be nothing of the sort to intervene to prevent Parliament from dismissing the Chief Commissioner. Sir James CARROLL (Gisborne) was the next speaker. He was mostly inaudible, J but the House appeared for a time to find ' his speech amusing. ! Mr. G. WITTY (Riccarton) repeated the ' objections lie bad already frequently offered to the Bill. Mr. J.'. ROBERTSON (Otaki) said he opposed the Bill, not because he believed t.ho ideal of a Commissioner independent I of Ministerial control and directly, re- , sponsible to Parliament was undesirable, [ but because he believed such an ideal was impossible of achievement. , There was no evidence that the system under the Bill ' would be any improvement on the Minis- [ terial autocracy of the past. A Labour Member's Views. Mr. W. A. VEITCH .(Wanganui) said the principle underlying the Bill was wrong, and that the system could not therefore, work out satisfactorily in practice. If a. Government were a clean Government, then it would not need the protection of a Commissioner; if it were not a clean Government, then the Bill showed that the Commissioner could -be kept ; under the thumb, of the Ministry. It ' would still be possible for .the Government to force upon, the Commissioner .their own. friends as appointees to the public service.. Ho earnestly hoped that the Railway Department would never be brought I under the control of a Commissioner. . Clean • government alone could give tho country . a clean public service. [ Dr. A. K. NEWMAN (Wellington East) , said he had' unfortunately been absent ill ; when the Bill was going through, and his L name had been recorded as voting for the inclusion of the post and telegraph service, which he might not have done had he been in tho House. Ho was not enamoured of the Bill, but he recognised that .it was an attempt to make things I better than they had been in the past. ) In any case if. the Bill were a failure it s could be amended. If the Bill were to be • a success, the Minister must.get the right > men, as Commissioners. Most of the I harassment.to which members of the ser- > vice were • subjected was not due to the Ministerial interference, but to inhumane • treatment from men higher.Up;' He hoped i tho Commissioner to be appointed would i be a just and humane man, who would s protect civil servants from unfair treati merit from liigh officials in "the. service. Mr. T. - BUXTON (Temuka) said there was. a strong feeling against _ the 'Bill among. Civil Servants, and he did not think the measure would be for the good - of the.masses of tho people ih New Zeit land; - Mr. W: C. BUCHANAN (Wairarapi). l congratulated tlie Ministeron having 5 framed his Bill and carried'it through so far. In defence of the Commissioner syst tem be quoted a resolution passed by a E farmers' and settlers' assdeiation in. New . South Wales protesting against n return to Government control of railways. He cordially approved of the Bill. Mr. W. D. S. MACDONALD (Bay of Plenty) said he was not sure whether tlie new system would be a success or not, but under a strong Ministry it would be unnecessary. All that had been said in support of tl\? BUl,in ■previous sessions was that New Ztaland Ministers were indolent, incompetent, and dishonest. ■ , Mr. G. LATIRENSON (Lyttelton) opf posed tho Bill, and he predicted that it would cause a great deal of friction, end j that it would be repealed in at most three j years from now. [ The Minister in Reply. ' The Hon. A. L. HERDMAN, in reply. s said the Bill was a democratic and not a i reactionary measure. The power of the 1 people and of Parliament was not being ■ taken away, for they would still be able > to dismiss" the Commissioner if that were '. -found necessary. The Bill had success- > fully withstood the assaults of the Op--1 position for three days, and come through i the ordeal unscathed. It would when piss--1 ed be a boon to the country f and it would create a better feeling in the , Public Service. . A commissioner who had no desire to get into Parliament, no de- , siro to get into the Ministry, could not possibly bo influenced in the . discharge of i his duty; his one aim would be to control the service so as to get the best results | possible for the country.' It was ridiculous L for honourable gentlemen to say that thero was no political influence now. Any ' member of Parliament could not walk I down tho street without being interviewed ; by someone who wanted a billet in the 1 Public Service. The strongest possible 5 evidence in support of the Bill was fura nished by the report of the Commission appointed by the members now on the other side of the House. • Discontent and Influence. These commissioners had declared that discontent was rife because influence was constantly being brought to bear in connection with appointments, removals, and 3 promotion by members of Parliament 3 against which influence Ministers could [ not be expected to stand. The new system would give the opportunity to tho young man or woman-of ability. It would operate in favour,of the sons and daugh--1 tcrs of poor people, for no longer would ® it. be only the people of influence who ' could get into tho service. He recognised 4 with other, members that there were good 1 and zealous officers, in the. service, but ho 0 recognised also that there wero many '* men in the service who should never '• have been there. The effect of passing similar Bills in the Australian States had been to eliminate political influence. Of this 1 he had been advised by Ministers in those - States. In South Africa asd in - tbe same scheme had been adopted, and l fon the same purpose—to eliminate poli--0 tical influence. It .would also relieve the t Ministers of a great deal of work, which f was becoming very necessary on account of the rapid increase in Tecent years of • the functions of Government. , Tho man--1 agement of largo staffs wns fast becoming 0 a science, and this was being recognised 1 by Governments as by private corporations. In reply to tho statements that 1 officers of the services were opposed to the Bill, he read a letter from a Civil " Servant in Christchurch which stated that 0 the Bill ivas welcomed by Civil Servants, " and that its passage was being watched ® with interest. He had been advised a.lso ; that the agitation against the Bill in the 1 Postal Department had been made out to [ be a great deal more widespread than it ? really was. He hoped tho result of the Bill would be that men in the service would fee] that, thoir future life was in their own hands, that, by their own exer- , tions and their ability they would sue- ' ceed and prosper, and he hoped that the ® public of the country, whom the Governl ment had to consider more than the Pubi lie Service, would feel that they had a better Public Service than they had had ° for the last twenty years. J The Division. :l The Bill passed its third reading by 39 0 votes to 29. . :1 Following was the division list:— i. Ayes (39). t \nderson Malcolm ! " ,1. Bollard Mandcr 9 R. F. Bollard Mossoy Bradney A. K. Newman Buchanan E. Newman i) Buick ' Nosworthy 1 Clark "key t Coates Pearce Dickson Pomare '» Escott ' Reed 4 Eraser R- H. Rhodes I- Guthrie T. W. Rhodes Harris Scott. _ e Herdman f*'- H. Smith e Herries Stath'am • Hiudmursh Sykes i- Kine i G. M. Thomson ' o Hunter ilson ;o Lang Xouug ■I lea.

Noes (29). Atmoro Macdonald Brown M'Kenzie Buddo Ngata Buxton , I'ayne Colvin Poland • Robertson Davey Russell Dickio Seddon Ell Sidey Forbes ' It. W. Smith Glover J. C. Thomson Hanan Veitch Isitt Wilford Lanrenson Witty, M'Callum BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL, Beforo the House adjourned a number of messages were received from tho Legislative Council. The Imprest Bill was returned and passed. The Dunedin • District Drainago arid Sewerage Act Amendment Bill was returned without amendment, and passed. The Mokau Harbour Board Act Amendment Act was returned with a minor amendment, which tho House accepted, and passed. Tho Births and Deaths Registration Bill was received from the Council, and read a first time. The House rose at 11.50 p.m.