“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS”

Evening Star, Issue 22448, 19 September 1936, Page 12

“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS”

ADJUSTMENT COMMISSIONERS ALL RETIRED SPOILS TO VICTOR POLICY ALLEGED [From Odr Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, September 18. There was a suggestion about a spoils to the victors policy in the contention raised by Mr Coates during the committee stage of the Mortgagors and Lessees Rehabilitation Bill when the committee reached the clause empowering the appointment of adjustment commissioners. This provoked the only lively discussion during the long afternoon on legal technicalities. The Finance Minister (Mr Nash) denied making appointments or retentions of the present commissioners except on the basis of competence. Mr Coates asked whether it made for sound administration to change the personnel of a court. Ho regarded it as an unsatisfactory principle to change the personnel of semi-official _ bodies when a new Government came into office. It was a new change in political administration. It was an indication that it was part of the present Government’s policy to remove those men who had been administering the law and start off with an entirely new personnel. The Minister of Finance: Did you remove the railway commissioners? Mr Coates: What has that to do with it. The Minister’s question does indicate that it is part of the Government’s policy. It is only one step further and judges and magistrates will go. Mr Poison (National, Stratford) : Justices of the peace will go, too. Mr Coates: There are too many of them to shift. _ This is bringing political considerations into the administration of law and justice. The policy is wrong and unsound. It introduces an entirely new phase into political affairs. I hope the Government will either throw out this clause or have it voted out. _ The Minister: That is a lot of bunkum. Mr Barclay (Government, Marsden) : You appointed your friends. Mr Coates: Now it is coming out. The member for Marsden will not be satisfied until his friends are put on those readjustment commissions. The Minister said it was a lot of bunkum. He wants to appoint his own political friends, too. Men who have administered the job to the satisfaction of the country are to go because this is going to be some job for the friends of the Minister and the members of the Government Can anyone tell me what are the views of the present members? Mr Barclay: Yes, the chairman of one organisation organised a political meeting for 3’ou. Mr Coates: I should say that was a very good recommendation. Dr M'Millan (Government, Dunedin West) : What party does Mr Waite belong #to ? Mr Coates: He is a good sound man. The Postmaster-General (Mr Jones); Why impute motives to the Government. Mr Coates; Because you have said so. Mr Barclay said he would recommend the present chairman of the North Auckland Commission for reappointment. He did not want • jobs for his political friends. • ■ ■ Mr Cobbe (National, Oroua), who was Minister of Justice in the previous Government, sfiid he resented very strongly the suggestion that any of the appointments he had, made were political appointments. He selected the best men available, regardless of political considerations. Mr Poison caused laughter by saying he was not going to accuse the Minister of wanting to make political appointments, as he believed the Minister would reappoint the present members. He gave the Minister credit for good intentions, but he objected to the provision that the lay members of the Court of Review should be deemed to have vacated l their offices on the passing of the Bill. That suggested that a heresy hunt was on'. Mr Barclay: A bit of weeding out has to be done.

Mr Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) said that ever since he had been in Parliament he had seen political appointments made, and if the Government did make such appointments it would be no better find no worse than its political predecessors. He did not believe in a policy of “ spoils to the victors.” Mr Hamilton (National, Wallace) said he would not object to the Labour Party putting some of its friends into offices if offices fell vacant, but it was something new to find that all the existing offices were wiped out by legislation. The decks were being cleared in a way that never had been done before. “ Why cut off all the heads?” he asked. “If a few men are not suitable to the Government let them be retired, but their terms of appointment shbuld be allowed to run out.”

Mr Nash brought the argument to a close with the declaration that the whole test was competence. Good men would be reappointed, but the Government must be in control of the position. He could not see how the Government could be criticised for taking power to reappoint every member. There was just as much capacity and integrity in the members of the Government to do the right thing as there was in the member for Oroua. A division was called for by the Opposition on. the amendment by Mr Coates that sub-clause 3 of clause 13, which provides that the lay members of the Court of Review shall vacate their offices on the passing of the Bill should be deleted, but the amendment was defeated (13 votes to 41). Mr Poison moved a further amendment, the effect of which would be to retain the present members of the adjustment commissions. This met defeat by 36 votes to 14.