RETRENCHMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 January 1922, Page 8

RETRENCHMENT.

A MEMBER’S GRAVE CHARGES. FULLER REPORT OF DEBATE. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) The retrenchment scheme was under discussion in the House of Representatives late on Friday night, when the estimates of the Public Service Commissioner’s Office were considered. Members on both sides of the House stated that the Commissioner had been unnecessarily hard in making dismissals from the service. The member for Wellington Suburbs (Mr. Wiright) asserted that some men had. been penalised on account of their religious beliefs. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart defended his Department warmly. Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) was one of the first speakers on the subject. He quoted some cases of hardship, and asserted that returned soldiers had been dismissed from the Government Departments while men of similar qualifications without military service to recommend them had been retained. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wilford) quoted the case of a woman who had been employed by the Lands Department for twenty years. iShe supported two sisters and a niece, yet she had been dismissed suddenly without reason or explanation. A man with thirty-five years’ efficient service behind him had been retired on a pension of £2OO a year, and another man had been promoted to the salary of the man who had gone out. That, said Mr. Wilford, was a sample of Government economy. Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs), said that he knew of the first case mentioned by Mr. Wilford. The woman had been dismissed after she had succeeded in an appeal against the continued failure of the Lands Department to promote her. Hon. D. H. Guthrie: And both of you know the reason why. Mr. Wilford: I ain sure I don’t. Mr. Guthrie: Then you ought to. Mr. Wright said the woman received no increase in salary year after year. At last, in desperation, she appealed. The » appeal succeeded, and then she was disI missed. He did not blame the Minister, I who had to accept the statements of his officers, but the case was simply a scandal. Then there were the cases of men who had been dismissd in Christchurch for an ofi’ence. They appealed, and their appeals were upheld. The Appeal Board sought to save the face of the As-sistant-Public Service Commissioner, but the curious thing was that these men all held a particular religious belief. ‘‘Men are being dismissed from the public service—and it is just as well this House should know it—because they have a certain religious belief,” said Mr. Wright. Members: What religious belief? Mr. Wright said that he did not wish to stir up religious differences. Mr. Fraser (Wellington Central): You have done it. You had better follow it up now. Mr. Wright added that eases of grave had come before committees of the House. One ease was that of a man with an excellent record, who went to the war and was promised his billet when he came back. He was not reinstated. and now ho was out ofi work altogether. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart, speaking with some heat, said that members ougTit to weigh their statements before making them. The man just mentioned by Mr. Wright had been' employed by the Defence Department before the war. He went to the front, in circumstances that need not be discussed, and when he came back his old position, owing to retrenchment and other factors, was not available: Another department found him a place at the special request of the Commissioner. Now the Department was being ‘blamed because the billet. had come to an end. The case -had been before the Returned Soldier?* Association, and the executive of that body, after investigation, had stated that they could not support any appeal by the man. It had been grossly unfair of the member for Wellington Suburbs to suggest that the question was one of religious beliefs. Members of the House were aware that Mr. Wright himself was a man of strong religious beliefs, and that he had denounced the Assistant Commissioner directly that gentleman took office. The service recognised the Commissioner to be a successful and competent officer. The task of retrenchment necessarily was a most unpleasant one. The Minister denied that the Departments had shown any lack of sympathy for returned soldiers. He would undertake, if any ease of apparent* hardship was placed before him, to show that there had been special circumstances.£He was sure that members would be sorry if they went back. to the old days of political patronage. Mr. Witty (Riccarton): It is worse now than it ever was. Mr. Stewart : T don't think so. Mr. Fraser said that the member for Wellington Suburbs had made a very serious accusation. He ought to prove it or withdraw it.

After some further debate, Mr. Massey promised that full inquiry would be made concerning Mr. Wright’s charge.