1
Patronage and ‘scientific’ bureaucratic rationalism:
The Public Service Act 1912
Dr John E. Martin
Parliamentary Historian
Presentation for IPANZ, MCH seminar on the Public Service Act 1912
9 October 2012
Introduction
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today.
Perhaps appropriate moment to review this most fundamental framework for
public service at time of great change with merging of departments, back office
functions.
20 years ago it was the Department of Labour that stimulated my interest in the
general development of the public service in the 1890s – the prelude to the Act
of 1912. For it was this department that was under the microscope for Liberal
patronage.
Most people know the apocryphal story of Seddon and a West Coaster. When
the man seeking a billet in the Labour Department arrived in the office of its
head, Edward Tregear, Tregear concluded that the man was illiterate and wrote
to Seddon to say he could neither read nor write. Seddon responded “Learn
him!”
Mention Alan Henderson’s excellent work, The Quest for Efficiency, which
although dealing with the origins of the State Services Commission has
extremely useful chapters on the origins of the Act itself. I well remember the
launch of his history in the SSC building on Molesworth St in 1990 just as I
joined the Historical Branch, Department of Internal Affairs. His work was
extremely thorough and has perhaps not been fully appreciated.
What will the ‘Future State’ bring?
• Nimble, agile, flexible, collaborative and responsive co-ordinated ‘whole
of government’ responses?
2
• Ministers who manage and who are subject to professionalisation of their
roles?
• Abandonment of the monolothic, top-down rule-bound ponderous
bureaucracy
• Replacement with experimental, adaptive and creative solutions assessed
by constant monitoring and evaluation.
There has been considerable change in the last century – to be addressed in
following presentations.
Prof Peter Hughes, Head of School of Government, in preface to Future State:
Our public servant forbears a century ago would have equally criticised ‘the
system of government, with its patronage, corruption and idiosyncracy, that the
bureaucratic system replaced. Clear consistent rules, due process and equity of
treatment were an advance on what had gone before. As bureaucracy replaced
patronage, so the ‘new public management’ reforms of the 1980s and 1990s
replaced the bureaucratic era.’
Understanding where we have come from – in more than a century and a half of
a public service in NZ – helps situate where we are today.
Bureaucracy
Part of wider moves towards bureaucratisation of government (Weber) –
providing ‘rational’ forms of organisation governed by rules and a legal
framework, and with a close relationship between means and ends.
At the turn of the 20th century bureaucratisation was part of the move to greater
democracy, by severing the strong relationships of patronage between ministers
and departments.
Now, as reflected in the activities of the Ombudsman (already functioning for
50 years) and the Official Information Act (since the early 1980s), government
bureaucracy can be seen as an obstacle to greater democracy.
Today’s image of flexible, collaborative and responsive government agencies
may seem far removed from the glory days of the twentieth century hierarchical
public service.
3
It is even further removed from the inception of bureaucracy in the power
wielded by Thomas Cromwell in the 1530s under Henry VIII.
As Elton suggests the beginnings of bureaucracy lay in the separation of
government administration from the royal household and in the weapon of
Cromwell’s personal patronage – a form of patronage that was remarkably
even-handed and based on loyalty but was still founded on despotic personal
power and the capacity to send recalcitrants to the Tower of London and the
scaffold – a far cry from gardening leave, redundancy and golden handshakes.
Cromwell, as presented by prize-winning biographer Hilary Mantell notably in
the third person, appears to be governed by less by human emotion and needs
than by subordinating himself to achieving the means to the end of gaining
Henry’s confidence and garnering power and influence.
Weber
The seeds of Max Weber’s bureaucratic rationality were beginning to emerge.
Worth mentioning the key attributes:
1. Organisation of official functions bound by rules
2. Divided into spheres of competence
3. Qualified administrative staff working separately from means of
administration
4. Office completely separated from person
5. Hierarchical organisation of functions
6. Recruitment by competitive examination, qualifications; free selection
7. Regular remuneration in form of graded, fixed salaries, career, promotion
by objective criteria
Nineteenth century NZ
In NZ a strong bureaucratic form of employment in the civil service was
resisted by the politicians.
4
Patronage existed, hand-in-hand with ‘patrician’ government by the political
elite drawn from runholders, merchants, lawyers.
New Zealand did not adopt a detailed classification system and appointments
continued to be made by ministerial discretion even if examination became a
method of entry.
But, with a small civil service, attention focused more on the politicians
themselves.
The Disqualification Act 1870 excluded from political office paid public office
holders and contractors for government work, bringing this country into line
with Britain and Australia.
This was especially true when a new breed of harder-nosed, aggressive,
entrepreneurial, thrusting, ambitious politician (Vogel as the archetype),
particularly in combination with the heightened importance of public works
finance, raised new threats in the minds of those who had relied upon the selfrestraining ‘moral purity’ of patrician politicians.
The local electorate ‘roads and bridges’ politician became increasingly
important at the national level with the abolition of the provinces. Lobbying for
local public works was a constant feature, variously described as ‘log-rolling’ or
‘pork-barrel’ politics. One man’s corruption was another’s honoured promise in
the never-ending scramble for public works.
The country descended into depression after Vogel’s bonanza.
Concern over monopoly and speculation in land, shady financial practices. This
fed charges of corruption.
1. Runholders and spotting and gridironing
2. The ‘Limited Circle’ of Auckland businessmen such as Thomas Russell
and Whitaker who controlled the BNZ
3. The sale of the Piako swamp to Russell and Whitaker
4. Land company development of railways
5. Macandrew and public works
5
Introducing business practices a theme which emerged by 1880s, focus
particularly on railways – effectively largest business in the country after Vogel
expansion of network.
1880 Commission on Civil Service, headed by one R. Douglas, urged
retrenchment, but seemed happy with ministerial patronage as a means of
restricting civil service employment, even if it was appalled at an example of
the South Island Commissioner of Railways having an investment in a firm to
whom contracts had been given.
Concerns over corruption of politicians continued into 1880s – Stout-Vogel’s
government of involvement with the development of railways through land
companies.
The 1886 Civil Service Reform Act introduced competitive examinations but
patronage remained prevalent – 1887 amendment exempted temporary
employees from the system.
Liberals
Any momentum for countering patronage was halted in its tracks by Seddon’s
use of the Public Works portfolio in the early 1890s (including the creation of
co-operative public works) and from 1893 his accession to Premier when John
Ballance died.
State shifting towards greater intervention, regulatory powers. The tentacles of
the state were extending ever further.
Dramatic growth in public service. By 1912 the 18 agencies of 1868 had grown
to 84, grouped within 16 major departments. Its work had both diversified and
specialised. The 74 types of position had become 314 over the same period. The
generic ‘clerk’ had become a substantial hierarchy of clerical ranks maintained
by the flow of cadets, and a class of ‘experts’ had been created.
Department of Labour a good example – headed up by an activist head in
Edward Tregear it took on a wide range of functions and with the aid of
regulatory legislation began to control working conditions, wages and hours of
work, health and safety, industrial relations, employment policy, state housing.
Seddon, just as he refused to delegate power and garnered portfolios to himself,
saw dispensing of political favours through ‘government billets’ as an integral
6
part of his benificent populist image. He did not attack the core civil service but,
at a time of great expansion of employment in government, took full advantage
of the appointment of cadets and temporary staff.
Conservative Opposition began to attack ‘corruption’ in government. The old
tactics of retrenchment of expenditure proved ineffective. However, the English
Fabian Socialist Webbs were less convinced of any corruption in 1898: ‘They
have revolted against the petty unscrupulousness and vulgarity of [Seddon’s]
parliamentary tactics and administrative action, which they dignify by the name
of corruption.’
Reform attacks
The new Reform group around Massey recognised it had to become a political
party and that the reforms of the 1890s had to be accepted. It began to fasten
onto public service reform to attack the government.
It claimed that it could administer the state better and more efficiently – without
the corruption, patronage and largesse or faddish radical left wing elements. It
began to campaign on civil service reform and a non-political board of control
for appointments and promotions.
On the side was Protestant/Roman Catholic sectarianism. Massey was a
prominent Orange Lodge man and allegations were made, especially when
Catholic Ward became PM that the public service was ‘stuffed’ with his coreligionists.
The Liberal government was not embarrassed by its actions – justified as a more
effective method of ensuring democratic representation. The close personal
employment relationship between minister and departmental officials ensured
that government departments would do the government’s bidding. And the
government’s bidding was in the mind of the Liberals an honourable,
democratic and popular cause for all New Zealanders.
Such patronage was indeed preferable to the ‘non-democratic’ domination by
the civil service bureaucracy. The debate boiled down to whether one preferred
to be governed by Ministers or by departmental undersecretaries. The Liberals
definitely preferred the former.
7
Enlightened patronage on behalf of the people was OK; patronage entrenching
powerful interests was not. The state it was generally acknowledged was an
instrument to certain ends – the question was whose ends?
The patronage of previous conservative governments was different in the minds
of the Liberals – because the state and civil service were the instrument of the
wealthy class (runholders, farmers, merchants, businessmen and banks).
Political episodes in the 1890s highlight this perception
• the BNZ enquiry conducted with great vigour by Seddon, which
attempted to connect previous governments with favoured treatment for
the BNZ because key government ministers held accounts with the BNZ
• attack on Sir John Hall by Jock McKenzie for alleged spotting and
gridironing.
The Liberals came under political assault from various quarters. Seddon’s
activities evident in operation of Parliament itself.
• Appointment in 1894 by Seddon of Colonel W. Fraser, previous Liberal
MP, to the position of Serjeant-at-Arms, in the process over-riding the
powers of the Speaker.
• Appointment of just-departed Liberal MP Charles Wilson as Chief
Parliamentary Librarian in 1901
• Seddon’s appointment of Hansard reporters was also regarded as
involving patronage.
• Wellington City by-election in April 1898 and construction of
Parliamentary Library – pushed through by Seddon in defiance of due
parliamentary process. The Conservative John Duthie won, amidst
allegations that employment on the site was a government billet. ‘To
applicants coming forward the formula was: “You are applying for work
on the Parliamentary Buildings. What are your qualifications?” “Sir, I am
a registered elector of the City of Wellington.” “Pass on to the job”.’
8
Accusations of ‘Tammany’ in NZ politics – maverick T.E. (Tea) Taylor MP
saw conspiracy and corruption everywhere and he soon became notorious for
his pursuit of Seddon and sensational allegations of ‘Tammany’ in politics and
in particular in the police force over its administration of the liquor laws.
One example backfired badly: breakaway Liberals including Taylor in House
accused Seddon of corruption over payment to his son in the army. Proved to be
mistaken identity – was one ‘Richard Sneddon’ rather than Richard Seddon.
Alexander Herdman
A lawyer who entered the House in 1902 and was to become a leading figure in
the Reform Party led by Massey. He was appointed cabinet minister in 1912 –
Attorney General and Minister of Justice amongst other portfolios. He piloted
the Public Service Act 1912 through Parliament.
Herdman introduced his first Public Service Bill in 1904 and others in 1909 and
1911. He looked at overseas examples, in particular Australia and Britain, and
was much influenced by the American Progressive movement.
He was strongly committed to adopting business methods in government.
Initially attacking political patronage and inefficiency he began to promote the
concept of scientific management, closely associated with Progressivism.
I had hoped to be able to put my finger on some of his reading from the General
Assembly Library, from the Day Books of the period. I was not able to turn up a
great deal but found some things of interest. Quite possibly an admirer of
Roosevelt.
The Life of Theodore Roosevelt by Murat Halstead, 1902 – Herdman read this
biography in 1903. Returning to politics in 1889, Roosevelt (a notable
Progressive) served on the U.S. Civil Service Commission, where he led the
reform effort to replace patronage with merit in the awarding of government
jobs.
Herdman in 1909 and 1911-12 got out of the library a large number of volumes
of British, Australian State and Federal Statutes, probably in preparation for his
legislation.
9
Progressivism – shift in USA from small-scale communities in 1880s to
bureacratic middle class by 1920s. New value system associated with
bureaucracy, functionality, rational administration and with systematic
collection of statistics improving society. Administration should be by experts
towards the goal of scientific government.
Classic Progressivist historian Robert Wiebe, Search for Order, p. 171: ‘the
panacea of the patrician had given way to the administrative tool of the expert,
with efficiency rather than moral purity its objective.’
Scientific management and its application to public administration. Influenced
by positivist view of science, research, amassing of the facts, measurement
provides solutions. Administration is a technical rather than a political issue.
Businessmen and experts best endowed to be administrators.
Frank Goodnow, Politics and Administration (1900), argued for separation of
politics from administration, with administration being carried out without value
judgements, making it a technical matter for experts. He argued that instead of
destroying democratic linkages it enhanced them.
Politically, 19th century moral purity would be replaced by scientific efficiency
(with corruption and patronage the discredited transition)
Notion of NZ as experimental social laboratory (in a scientific, statistical sense)
closely associated with this philosophy. Establishment of Department of
Labour and labour bureau and collection of labour statistics followed this
thinking.
Herdman’s bills
Herdman drew upon Australian reforms extensively.
1904 bill drew upon NSW legislation of 1895
proposed a three person board responsible for classification, appointments,
promotion and dismissals, and for promoting efficiency and economy.
He proclaimed that: ‘The labourers in the Seddonian vineyard are every day
increasing’, to which the Liberals said was “sour grapes” because the
conservatives had lost power!
In 1909, at a time of retrenchment in the public service, he reintroduced the bill.
10
Based on the 1902 Australian Commonwealth Public Service Act
control of the public service by chief and two assistant commissioners rather
than a board
Another bill in 1911 was virtually the same as the 1909 bill.
By 1911 Herdman had adopted the language of scientific management.
In introducing the Civil Service Reform Bill Herdman said that management of
‘large bodies of public officials is gradually becoming a science’. He went on to
say: ‘It is like the control of an army, and requires men of wide experience,
expert knowledge, sound judges of character, and great capacity for
organization.’ Management should be taken out of the hands of politicians and
given to the experts.
He cited the Australian example giving control to a Commissioner. He outlined
a scheme involving three Commissioners, appointed from outside the civil
service, who should have complete control, subject to control by Parliament.
Commissioners should come from outside the public service – someone
accustomed to business matters who understands matters of appointment,
promotion, discipline and control of staff in the sense of a science.
The Bill specifically proscribed patronage, disqualifying anyone who obtains or
attempts to obtain assistance from a Minister or MP from gaining employment
or from getting promotion or other personal advantage. It also sought to stamp
out the practice of creating temporary positions to give employment to billethunting petitioners.
The Liberals countered with accusations that ministerial control was better than
bureaucratic control which violated democracy – officials should not govern the
country; democratically elected representatives should.
The election of 1911 weakened the Liberals. Ward decided to resign and the
Mackenzie ministry distanced itself from its Liberal antecedants. During its
brief existence it appointed a Royal Commission (led by W.D. Hunt –
Southland businessman, managing director and chairman of Wright
Stephenson’s) to enquire into the unclassified departments of the public service.
Hunt Commission
11
The Hunt Commission had a wide brief and took a broad view of its job. Its
members came from business backgrounds and Henderson believes they would
have been strongly exposed to scientific management influences.
Its report (AJHR, 1912, H-34) was very much consistent with the thrust of the
Reform initiative and has been taken as the crucial benchmark for change. It
pointed to a lack of co-ordination and uniformity between departments,
advocated non-political control by a Board of Management which would make
appointments, grade officers into four divisions and promote on merit.
The Public Service Act 1912
The report of the Commission was overtaken by events. In July 1912 Reform
defeated the government in a vote of no confidence and took charge.
By the time the report was available in September Herdman’s Public Service
Bill had had its first reading. Reform would put into practice what it had been
preaching for some time.
As Henderson trenchantly points out it was Herdman’s bill that was more
important in shaping the future of the public service.
The 1912 bill was almost identical to that of 1911 but without the stipulation
that commissioners had to be appointed from outside the public service.
Its second reading made it apparent that the Hunt report would have little
impact on it. The bill retained the Commissioner’s responsibility to Parliament
rather than cabinet.
Herdman at the last minute removed the Governor’s involvement in
classification, appointments, promotions and dismissals. This diverged from the
Australian approach which gave cabinet a means of control over appointments.
This set the New Zealand public service on a distinct long-term path – that
selection of permanent heads would be made by the Commissioner/
Commission.
The Public Service Bill – the most important of Reform’s first session – was
enacted on 7 November 1912. It was to come into operation on 1 April 1913.
It created:
12
1. a unified, politically neutral, career public service
2. based on entry by competitive examination, promotion on merit (qualified
by seniority), with security of tenure and retirement pensions
3. Ministerial authority to appoint, promote, dismiss and fix salaries was
abolished
4. Such powers were placed in the hands of an independent Commissioner
appointed by the government but reporting to Parliament and serving a
fixed term free of ministerial supervision
5. A Public Service Commissioner, responsible to Parliament, and two
Assistant Commissioners were to be appointed by the Governor
6. Four divisions with grading, regrading every five years and rights of
appeal. Parliament retained right to increase/reduce total salaries by a
ratio.
Conclusion
The public service was set on its new course. At a stroke it had been cut away
from its 19th century foundations in patronage and patrician ‘moral purity’, and
modernised in line with progressivist reforms and scientific management
philosophies in other countries.
In its legislative framework the influence of Australia was notable, but even the
appointment of permanent heads was taken out of political hands. The increase
in the size, functions and specialist expertise in the public service as a result of
Liberal reforms had been recognised by a framework for the bureaucratic
expansion of the state that was to continue through two world wars and beyond.
The new framework was to bring issues with it. Combining political
independence and efficiency and economy (as desired by succeeding
governments) introduced a fundamental tension. How was the wish of
governments to ensure economy to be translated into the public service?
And, more broadly, as Weber pointed out bureaucracy was a technical
instrument rather than a neutral force above competing interests that embodied
the interests of society. Bureaucracy had a tendency to exceed its function and
13
become an interest in own right. In a modern democracy politicians should
subordinate the bureaucracy to the goals of a democratic state.