CIVIL SERVICE CONTROL OF PROMOTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 October 1916, Page 2

CIVIL SERVICE CONTROL OF PROMOTION.

(From Our Own Correspondent.) Wellington, October 30.

The ruling given by the Solicitor-Gen-eral on the subject of promotion in the Civil Service touches the fringe of a very big subject. lb is a subject that the people and public men of Now Zealand will have to face sooner or later, and the sooner the better. The problem of the control of the Civil Service and tht regulation of promotion was not solved when the 'Public Service Commissioners were given their present powers. Political influence may have been abolished (the point is dflbateable), but in some other respects the weak nesses of the old system were accentuated. The closer one gets to the Civil Service, the more strongly one feels that the need for reform of a farreaching character remains. The Solicitor-General says, in effect, that when promotions aer being made, the interests of the State employees as well as of the State should be considered, and that a man who is in line for promotion, and is qualified for the higher position, should not be kept back on the ground that his transfer will be inconvenient to the Department he is serving. Apparently the Solicitor-Gen-eral thinks that there are occasions when the interests of the State should be subservient to the interests of the State employee, it any rate to the extent of inflicting inconvenience upon the State in order that the State employee may gain an advantage. Does not this ruling mean that in certain circumstances the efficiency of the State Department must be sacrificed to the interests of civil servants? A contented Public Service is an asset, of course, and the State is interested in securing that asset, but, even with a recognition of that fact, the Solicitor General's ruling seems to go a trifle far. But the really weak point m the system governing the Civil Service is not the method of promotion; it is the general recognition of the "right" of every civil servant to retain his or her billet as long as no actual misconduct occurs. It is a fact, capable of definite proof, that in the public service of New Zealand inefficiency, as the word is understood by ordinary people, is not. a barrier to promotion, and is seldom or never a cause of dismissal. An inefficient civil servant may fail to secure promotion, but he will not get dismissed if he'breaks no law, and attends tc his office for the requisite number of hours per day. In fact, he cannot 1m dismissed. The head of his Department cannot dispense with his services. The Minister has no power to confer the "order of the sack."' Even the Public Service a is said, cannot dispense with a 'permanent officer of the Civil Service unless they can prove misconduct against him. And inefficiency, however obvious it mav be, is not misconduct in the eyes of the law. It is not suggested that these conditions are peculiar 1 to New Zealand, but they are made particularly perilous here by the extent of the State's activities. There are Departments on which public attention is seldom focussed, and in which inefficiency- flourishes like the proverbial bay tree. What is the remedy? The writer put this question to an old and experienced public servant, a man who , has made good in one of the busine?. Departments tff the State, and the answer was interesting. "The first thing h to make each State Department a- selfcontained business organisation," said the officer. "I don't mean that State Departments should not co-operate with one another. But each of them should be run on business lines. It should present a report and\ balance-sheet at the end of the year, and its head should be, held personally responsible for results. We have ft 'permanent' head, to each Department at the present time. What we want at the head of each Department is a man who has full control, and will be held responsible if he does not secure efficiency. I can anticipate lots of the arguments that would be used against that suggestion. Wc don't want sweating; we don't want favouritism; we .don't want one State Department to fight another; but we do want results, and the only way to make sure of getting them is to have some ir.f..i in a position where the Government can say to him, 'Your Department :i not giving the results we want. Whit's the matter? Get on to your job, or get out!' "Of course, the man who is nut, at the head of a State Department under those conditions has got to have the same powers as are possessed by the manager of an ordinary business concern. He must have the'right to 'sack' the incompetent employee, and I recognise all the difficulties that arise when this ordinary business rule is applied to the State service. But if the present condition oi affairs is maintained—that is, f. the head of a Department can do no more than reprimand a subordinate, and must promote generally in accordance with some scheme of seniority, what chance have we. of securing the scrt of efficiency that a business house demands? >Wc arc at the mercy of the least competent employee, who retains his job under the State in perpetuity, while, his more energetic and more efficient comrade leaves the State service and goes into private business. 1 am speaking in general terms, and I know Ml about the exceptions. Sut there are not enough exceptions."