PARLIAMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 16, 11 September 1912, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1912. house of representatives. (Per Press Association.) Wellington, September 10 The House met at 2.90 p.m. Reform of the Upper s-uuce. Mr. Massey announced that lie would bring before the House to-mor-row a measure to reform the Upper House. The Bill would not ue on tuo same lines as the Bill introduced in tlie Upper House, but would aim at reform of that institution.

Public Service Bill. Mr. Herdman moved the second reading of the Public Service Dill. He said that the Bill aimed at giving satisfaction to those employed m the pu »- lic service. Dissatisfaction and discontent .wore manifest in the service, i no fact that the Mackenzie Government Had set up a lloyal Commission to enquire into the ramifications of the service had boon the strongest condomnation of it. The report of that Commission condemned the system wJiic-.it was at present in force. So far as lie knew, a Civil Service Commission was in operation in England, and giving complete satisfaction. The Dill lie was introducing was modelled on Australian legislation, which he believed was also working satisfactorily. He had received replies to letters from Australia, and Mr. Holman, AttorneyGeneral of New South Wales, informing him that the Civil Service Commission gave satisfaction, eliminated political patronage, and promoted the efficiency of the service and content therein. The control of the service by a Commission did not show that it was more unsatisfactory than control by a Minister. It also lessened detail work for the Minister. Similar replies had been received from other Australian States. The Prime Munster then referred to the report of tne Civil Service Commission, which, he said, was one of the most valuable documents ever laid before the House. The Commission had pointed out the evils of the back door. This Bill made the back door evil absolutely impossible. This Bill aimed to make merit, and merit alone, count. He cited figures showing the increases in tne number of Civil servants and the salaries paid to them during different periods between 1907 and 1912. There had been an increase in Civil servants of 4955, and an increase in the amount paid as salaries of £714,000, for the period. .Reverting to the Bill, the Prime Minister said that the Commissioner would receive £I3OO annually, two assistant commissioners would receive £BOO each, all to bo charged on the Consolidated Fund. The Commissioner may be suspended or removed for misbehaviour or incompetence by the Governor, but shall not be removed from office before Parliament has asquiesced in such removal. in the evening, Mr. Herdman, continuing his explanation of the Bill, said that it was provided that extra clerks could be employed in the public service for a period of throe month only. A special aim of the Bill was that litness should govern promotions.

Sir J. G. Ward said that the .Minister thought that the change of administration proposed would remove a cause of discontent and dissatisfaction. He held that the course of nature could not be altered, although the Minister might desire it. When Mr Herdman spoke of an increase in tiie Civil Service he omitted to take into consideration the fact that the population had increased by leaps and bounds. The Bill provided for one man to control the whole of the Civil Service. They had two assistant commissioners, but they were under the control of the Commissioner. Who, he asked, was going to supply information of efficiency, etc., to the Commissioner P It must be the heads of departments. The proposed Commis, ion or had far too much power. The Commissioner would be amenable to influences, and so would the assistant commissioners. In his opinion the only men in the country who wanted a Public Service Board wore those who wore at the top. In three years the whole rank and file of the service would be up in arms against it. He was convinced that the Bill, though it would go through, was a retrograde step.

Mr. Fisher said that the Civil Service Commission had really found that the Civil Service was an excellenfc_ono in spite of its conditions. Ho could say that the Civil servants disliked the present system as much as anything. What the Bill aimed at was doing away with political influence. The recent Commission had found that inefficiency and extravagance had been rewarded in the public service. The Commission said that there had been no system in the appointment < f public servants. There was a stifling in the service of ambition, and discontent was rife throughout. A number of men in tho service were devoting most of their time to acquiring knowledge to enable them to pass examinations, not for the betterment of the service, but to enable them to get out of it. He would admit that the Commissioner may he approachable by some people, but bo would point out that a Minister could bn approached by anyone. The system advocated was not complete, but it was tho best that con’d be advocated.

Mr. Wilford said that a blot on the report was that the Commission did not distinguish between merit and ability. He asked what was to become of temporary men in certain offices, who, if tho Bill passed, must be dismissed? There was no provision in the Bill by which anyone could demand to be heard on appeal. They wanted, under the Bill, to get away from political patronage, but the Government under the Bill was the Ministry of the day, and would leave Ministers with as much political patronage ns before. Mv. G. M. Thompson concurred with

a speaker who said that a number of Civil servants were spending most ot their time working up for examinations to enable them to get out of the service. Ho did not think any man over thirty-live should he asked to sit

for examination. . Mr. Hunan said that before asking the House to pass the dill tiie Minister should have proved that whore Uivil Service Boards had been cstablislioJ the service is in a higher state of ollideucy than in countries where there was no such controlling-body. Mr. Massey said that the effect o) the Bill was to promote the efficiency of the service. He held that thOie was no suggestion to abolish boards m Britain. The setting up of a Commission there was simply to ascertain it u were possible to effect improvements in several departments. He contended that there was no analogy between the Railway Commissioners and the Public Service Commissioners. The former had to control the whole service, which did not apply to the Civil Service Commission. If the right to appeal was not clear in the Bill he was prepared to make it so in Committee. He agreed that the Civil Service was equal to any in the world, hut was sure that those in the service were anxious tor the passing of the Hill. , Voices; Xo; most are against it.

THE DEBATE CONTINUED. Wellington, September 11. After midnigiit the debate n Liu House on tlie Public Service Bill was continued by Mr. T. H. Davey (Christchurch East), who contended that the Minister had confined Ins attention to onlv a few departments. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) op posed the handing over of the pul die service to a Commissioner. The Minister replied at 1 a.m. Ik contended that if they wanted to amd ish patronage they must place a Commissioner as the man in control on .hi same plane as the Auditor-Genera!. The object of putting tno service un dor the control of a Commissioner waste give every man a chance. As to imance ho was informed by the Government Actuary that the new scheme meant an increased expenditure of £3500 a year for five years, but at the end of that period they would have cadets coming along and the matter would bo adjusted. . The second reading was carried by 36 votes to 25, and the House rose.