GRATUITIES TO REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED CIVIL SERVANTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1414, 27 August 1878, Page 3

GRATUITIES TO REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED CIVIL SERVANTS.

On the motion for the second reading of the Civil Service Bill, Mr Stevens would like to make one or two observations, with a view to getting information upon a point which he thought would he of some consequence. It had been represented to him lately that the Government proposed to discontinue the practice of giving to the widows or representatives of deceased Civil servants the gratuity which the Governor in Council was empowered to grant under section 40 of the Act of 1866, and ho thought the present opportunity was a good one of obtaining information as to whether or not this was the case. If it were the case, he would be very much inclined to ask the Attorney-General to put something into this Bill which would have the effect of making these officers, who had been in the service many years, and who had founded expectations on the practice which prevailed, acquainted with their real position, and relieve them from anxiety on this point. Mr Stout said it was not the intention of the Government, in dealing with gratuities under section 40, to ignore any rights that had accrued under the Act. The hon. member for Christchurch City knew that since 1871 no such rights had accrued. He (Mr Stout) believed, however, that some gratuities had been given even after 1871. All that the Government wished was that officers who now came into the Government service should provide, like other persons in the community, for their own families. With regard to the remark of the lion, member for Now Plymouth, ho (Mr Stout) wished to point out that the Bill would not revive any claims. It simply provided for the continuance of existing claims. The object of section 4 was to give time to officers who had been employed by the New Zealand Company and Provincial Governments to come under the prior Acts as well as the Act of 1866. As to officers employed by Harbor Boards, they were on a different footing, because they were Provincial Government officers, and the question involved was not one of a retiring allowance ; it was simply one whether they were entitled to compensation, seeing their services were dispensed with by the abolition of the provinces. He believed the Government had given this assurance to those officers; that, if their offices were not continued by the Harbor Board taking them over, they would be entitled to claim compensation. The late Government laid down the rule which the present Government carried out. They looked at the matter in this way: A harbor master was employed by the Provincial Government ; the management of the port was vested in the Harbor Board, which took over the officer at the same salary. Well, ho had not lost anything, and why should ho he compensated ? He believed there was only one case in which compensation had been given by the late Government. As to the goldfields officers, they were, in fact, in one sense provincial servants, as they were paid by the provinces. They got higher salaries from the provinces than Resident Magistrates in the same position were receiving from the General Government. It would be hardly fair, seeing that those gentlemen had been drawing higher salaries, that they should now get a pension in addition. Of course those officers had been taken over by the General Government, and, having been taken over since 1871, no pension or retiring allowance was paid to them.