The Daily News. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1920. DEPARTMENTAL BARGAINING.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 October 1920, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1920. DEPARTMENTAL BARGAINING.

New Zealand may be a democratic country—in theory—but it would require some ingenuity to reconcile democratic principles with the autocratic methods adopted by the State Departments, What are the true functions of these departments'' Presumably their mission is to assist in the detail work of government. Those who have not. been "up against" any of these departments might innocently consider that, at least, departmental administration was designed and carried out on lines that were not only progressive, but indicated a high sense of exemplary rectitude and a keen desire to promote the best interests of the people. Possibly this view might have contained a modicum of truth and reality had not the insidious germ of bureaucracy been allowed to operate without restraint, with the result that to-day the departmental tail is wagging the Ministerial dog, the country is governed by departmental heads; each de- , partment is a law unto itself; the will of the bureaucrats is in continual conflict with public needs, and all sorts of obstacles are placed in the way of progress, while in- '■ some cases, although keeping within the four corners of the law, transactions are carried out that will not stand the test of the 1 searchlight of justice and moral- [ ity. Two striking illustrations, . which formed part of the. contents l of Tuesday's issue, may be cited as cases in point. One dealt with ' the protracted negotiations* bej tAveen the New Plymouth Borough. Council and the Public I Works Department over the issue ' of a license to the borough to

enable it to supply electricity to various districts; and the other related to a sale oE Native laud in tlie "Waimate Plains district, over which the Government made and retained a profit of between one and two thousand pounds, which it is claimed should, have been passed on to the Natives concerned in the sale. lu the case of the borough license, it should be noted that two licenses had been previously obtained, but as the borough had, on public grounds, decided to enlarge its electrical supply area a new license was necessary and should have been granted as a matter of course, especially as it was required for work the Government should long ago have tak- ! en in hand. Then commenced a process of intense bargaining, in which the departmental officials, ■ let us hope without the sanction of the Minister, keenly endeavored to drive the best bargain they 3 could —not for the public, but for

the Government. No public body should be subjected to such an ordeal, having, so to speak, to fight Government officials inch by inch, and in the end to be compelled to be satisfied with such concessions as could be wrung from the department, the only redeeming feature being the courtesy displayed. A system which permits "stand and deliver" tactics, urgently requires recasting, and it is probable better use could be made of the keen official bargainers, by transferring them to the High Commissioner's Office in London, where they would speedily find their level. In relation to the Native land case, the public can readily form an opinion on a transaction that speaks for itself. The facts [is stated to the House were not iu any way disputed. The. holder of a West Coast lease, applied for the , freehold and the natives agreed to sell. The Government value was £26 per acre, though land in the vicinity was selling for not less than £6O, but while the Government paid the Natives £12,045 it actually received £13,810 from the. lessee. The Native Department bought the ,laml and the. Lands Department sold it, the. two transactions proceeding at the same time, the result being that the Government coffers benefited to the extent of £1765, the purchaser paying the 2i per cent, charged by the Lands Department ;or expenses. Most probably neither of the Ministers concerned 1 bad any hand in the appropriation of this profit, the matter being carried out by departmental officers.; and if practices of this kind are 1 not ruled oul Ihey will tend to be a danger to the State. The examples quoted show the necessity for personal control by the Minister, i as Mr. Herries admitted that figures quoted by speakers had not been received by him.