STATE EMPLOYEES.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1870, 2 October 1913, Page 5

STATE EMPLOYEES.

SUBSIDIARY OCCUPATIONS;

RESTRICTIONS OPPOSED,

The right of Public Servants to augment their earnings ■ by engaging in occupations other than those' in which they aro employed by tho Stato was discussed at some length in the Hon so of Representatives .yesterday. Jlr. G. AVitty asked whether the Government would issue instructions that all State employees should be required _to conform to the regulation forbiddiug outside work for profit or, in the alternative, whether it -would' withdraw tho regulation. • Tho Prime Minister replied: "I'am informed that there is no regulation such ,as that referred to by the honourable member which li'o states prevents tho wifo of 11 surfaceman from selling milk or produced Outside the Railway De-partment-the whole subject is .under tho consideration of the Public Service Commissioner."

Mr. E.' H. Clarke (Chalmers) said that a Railways employee in his district had been ordered to discontinue tho sale ; of milk. Another example that had come under his notice was that of a Publio Servant who had been dismissed for absenting himself from '[duty without leave for an hour and a half. On tho other hand the head of a Department in the Public Service, drawing £400 a year and travelling expenses, was allowed to absent himself for a week on privato business. Mr. Clark said that this discrimination was most unfair. •

Mr. AVitfcy said that at present there was class legislation. Tho Prime Minister had been misinformed. He knew of railway employees who had been stopped from selling milk, not on account of the dairy regulations—they were prevented from soiling milk to their neighbour. Other men had been prevented from playing • at- country dances. This was wrong in view of the fact that Public Servants getting £600 a year, and their wives, were allowed to be interested in privato business.

Mr. AY". A. Veitch cited a case in which a railwayman was ordered to discontinue selling produce bocauso he had disposed of a few bags of potatoes to his workmates. There was a real need, he continued, for an extension of the civil and political rights of Civil Servants. "

Sir. D. Buctoo took a similar view and contended that there was at present too finicky a control of Civil 'Servants.

Mr. T." K. Sidey said'that the reply given by the Minister was a' 'Departmental one, and evaded the point. It might bo true in the letter, but was-not true in tho spirit. In his own district a railway employee whoso wife kept' a small grocer's shop was told that she'must close it or lie would be dismissed. ■ The case of the Director of Physical Education was an aggravated one,, because his wife carried on' a business directly rented to tho duties with which he was entrusted. Tho business got a splendid advertisement from the fact that the person carrying it on was tho ,wifo of tho Director of Physical Education.

Mr. M'Callum declared that the Departmental head mentioned by Mr. Clark did not receive £400 nor £300 a year. He was tho only male relative of_tho in .an.,estate,, and received small fee in': connection'with its administration, but he had never taken Government money for time spent on .work c/onnected with tho -estate. Some motive must underlie tho attacks made upon this mnn, who had rendered eminent service to the Dominion.

""" Mr. C. Parr.ta said that ho had brought-under the notice, of Hon. It. H. Rhodes complaints that officials at SeaclifF Mental Hospital, .some of them in receipt of comfortable salaries, were selling milk and butter in competition with small farmers in the neighbourhood. His opinion was that restrictions imposed on one public servant ■ should be imnoscd on all.

• Tlio Hon. W. H. Herries said that it ■was very difficult to draw tlio line. Hon. members would- probably agree, however, that a -man earning good wages'at Addington, or one of tjie other workshops, should not bo able to go out in tho evening and compete with other tradesmen. Tho practice was-that when complaints came in, as they constantly did, from storekeepers, carpenters, painters, and others, that railway ser r vanis were competing with them, inquiry was made, aiid if the complaint was' found, to be well grounded, the competition was stopped. Possibly, in some cases, undue severity had been exercised, but a man should not be allowed to compete .with his less fortunate fellows who were not in receipt of salaries from the Government.

The Hon. AV. F. Massey said -ill would' obviously be impossible to allow an officer, say a stock inspector, to go •round the country on his duties, and at the same time to allow him to buy stock from one farmer and sell it to another. With regard to the instance cited of the sal*) of milk by a-Civil Servant. being prohibited, he said there was much to be said on both sides. The Health Department had raised objection to the sale of milk by vendors whu were, not licensed. He knew there were cases,of hardship where men with small incomes were prevented from selling milk to a neighbour. But •the Government must always have regard to public, safety. .