FOIL FOR DEPARTMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10612, 10 June 1920, Page 5

FOIL FOR DEPARTMENT

COMMISSIONER CONTROL

POST AND TFrLKO'RXPn OFFICERS OX POLITICAL INFLUENCE.

Commissioner control as .applied to the publics services is a subject that has been prominctly before the public during the past few* years, so therefore an opinion expressed in the annual report to he presented at the conference of the New Zealand Post and Telegraph Association should bo of interest. Written under the heading, or Promotion Board Control/' it is as follows: *'Oiip experience of Commissioner control was such that it van bo said in ttereral terms that we could make no headway. The Commissioner was used as a foil by the department to postpone answering material claims, while conversely th«* Commissioner only to° frequently fell back on the absence of any report or recommendation from the department . whore ho was approached direct. Obviously, this was bad business. Disappointment followed disappointment, and discontent was engendered. What, 'is wanted is some authority who can say ‘Yes* or ! X(V to the requirements of tho service as presented by the, association, and to whom representatives can hsiv© direct access at- all reasonable times.

“The Commissioner system, as altered by the Post and Telegraph Amendment Act, 1018, seems to mo to give all tho guarantee the country can desire as regards tho absence of the use of influence —political or otherwise-y----in appointments to or promotions in the service, while the presence of an elected representative on the Promotion Board gives the service a guarantee of fair-dealing, 'which is equally desirable. After all, the majority of promotion appeals proved that* tho Commissioner relied entirely on tho report of the department head in ar riving at his decisions. It is to tho department we must look to rectify anomalies, and members should therefore regard as most valuable the system which brings them closest to the department.”