Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1929. MAKING IT POLITICAL

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 129, 27 November 1929, Page 10

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1929. MAKING IT POLITICAL

There is grave danger of the real issue regarding Public Service pay being obscured by the present controversy. The fight now proceeding, and it is largely influenced by the pending by-election, is on the point: Have the Public servants most to gain from United, or Reform, or Labour? The real issue is: "Should such a question be a subject for political bidding and bargaining and voting? Without hesitation we say that it should not be. If Public Service pay and conditions are to be decided on a party basis a most dangerous principle will be introduced. The New Zealand Public Service has a high reputation for efficiency. It has to its credit also a reputation for zealous discharge of its duties without regard to the party which may be on the Government benches. It is acknowledged that the men who served the Reform Government faithfully are now giving equally faithful service to the United Government. If a Labour Government should come into office there would be similar attention^ to duty. Whatever political opinions the Public servants may hold privately, they do not allow such opinions to influence them in the discharge of their official duties. The Service is non-political. It will be impossible for it to remain so if it is taught by the political parties to enter the field of party politics. Governments in the past have wisely done their utmost to make political activity in the Service unnecessary. Classification schemes were brought into operation by the Liberals. ' The Reform Government went further by transferring control of departments from Ministers to a Commissioner. There is regular machinery now for regrading and classification according to merit. This machinery should not' be tampered with. It may be said that it was tampered with in 1922, when salaries were reduced by Parliament through the Public Expenditure Adjustment Act; but that was an emergency measure. Parliament (by a majority vote) held that it was warranted by the economic position. It was the alternative to retrenchment by reduction of staffs. If, however, Parliament made these reductions, surely, it is within the power of Parliament also to restore them? That may be admitted; but Parliament in such circumstances should be guided by the Government's advisers. The United Government was so guided in refusing restoration. The Special Committee, comprising the Public Service Commissioner, the General Manager of Railways, the Secretary of the Post and Telegraph Department, and the Secretary of the Treasury, reported that "a general attempt to restore these reductions or to increase generally the salary scales is not warranted, practicable, or capable of equitable adjustment." That advice cannot be rejected without substituting political for non-poli-tical control.

It is not in the interests of the Service as a whole that there should he such substitution. It would be the thin end of a wedge which would sooner or later split the Service into party divisions. Politicians are not capable of deciding what the rewards of service should be. They are far too much subject to mass influence. They cannot know the respective merits of individuals, or even of classes of individuals. Lacking such knowledge, they are liable to be guided by results in votes, and to favour a wide distribution of largesse. Ten £100 increases to men. of merit appeal less to the politician than a hundred £10 increases. Under political control mass agitation and clever lobbying may achieve much more than steady attention to duty. If Public servants believe in promotion and pay according to merit they will be well advised to set their faces steadily against the endeavour to tempt them into politics. They are fully entitled to make their representations to the Government of the Day, but there is a difference between making such representations and encouraging, either directly or indirectly, a system of bidding for public favour.

Already that bidding system has advanced so far that the Labour leader has claimed his reward. He has asked boldly for votes and political support from the Public Service organisations. The Leader of the Reform Party, we regret to say, has attempted to bid against Mr. Holland, though he has certainly been more discreet in not mentioning the price. If it were nothing else, this bidding would be bad tactics. Neither Reform nor United can hope to outbid Labour, which has shown itself ready to promise anything which may make it popular. But there is a greater objection than this to Mr. Coates's offer. In- office he. accepted the advice .of responsible administrative officers. Now he rejects the advice tendered by those officers to his successor. He is inconsistent, and has laid himself open to the retort, already made, that he is prepared to do in Opposition what he failed to propose-when he had the It should be clearly under-

stood that we do not presume to say whether the Public Service is underpaid or not, or whether it is overstaffed or not. We have defended the Service against charges of overstaffing and costliness which we have considered made on too slight evidence. The Government has responsible officers whose duty it is to attend to such matters. If any Government has reason to believe that this duty is not efficiently discharged, it has its remedies; but the remedy is certainly not to meddle for political poses 4nd in the expectation of a reward in votes.