The governor’s men
Until the early 1900s the civil service operated on the basis of political patronage. Initially, this meant that the governor had the personal power to hire, fire, promote and discipline civil servants. Until 1856 all civil servants were members of the British Colonial Service, and the governor had to report each appointment to the Colonial Office in England. He also made decisions about civil servants’ terms and conditions of employment, including rates of pay, and directly intervened in the running of departments. After 1856 those powers were transferred to government ministers.
19th-century job descriptions
In 1868 there were 79 different occupations in government departments. They included the posts of arms cleaner, boatman, bugler, Chinese interpreter, coast waiter, coxswain, crier, housekeeper, landing waiter, locker, receiver of gold revenue, searcher, sheriff, sub-collector of customs, stamper, tide surveyor and tide waiter.
Political control was absolute and regarded as appropriate in the 19th century to the extent that ministers even saw themselves as ‘officials’. This system of personal political control created problems. Appointments often depended on the relationship a job applicant had with a minister (or with someone close to the minister), rather than on that person’s skills or merits. Because departments were controlled by individual ministers, they developed their own systems of operating, and it became difficult to coordinate their activities. The Hunt Commission of 1912 noted that this produced ‘a great tendency for each department to magnify and glorify itself.’1
Use shorter words
In the early days government ministers would monitor how much departments spent on sending telegrams. Any ‘diffusely worded’ telegrams were to be reported directly to ministers.
The civil service grows
As civil servants’ jobs became more complex, it became clear that many ministers lacked the skills needed to run their departments. Also, as the number of civil servants grew, ministers struggled to balance the demands of running departments with their parliamentary responsibilities. In 1867, the nine cabinet ministers oversaw 1,600 civil servants, but by 1912 the same number of ministers were responsible for 23,000 departmental employees, although many of these were employees of just two departments – the burgeoning Railways and Post & Telegraph departments.
Soldiers first, women last
In 1906 soldiers who had served in the South African War were given preference over other applicants for civil service positions. Women, even those who passed the competitive entrance examination, were only appointed to ‘such vacancies … as are suitable for girls’.2 Very few women were appointed.
The pressure for reform builds
Dissatisfaction with this state of affairs grew, and governments tried – with limited success – to address the problems and to bring greater uniformity into public service staffing arrangements. Prompted by civil service reform in Victoria, the 1866 royal commission investigated the efficiency of the civil service. It noted that the civil service had ‘no rule as to appointments, no rule as to promotions, no rule as to dismissals’, and called for the introduction of non-competitive exams for entry into the civil service, and a set of standard regulations to cover all departments.3
Too big, too much
Public concerns about the size of government departments and public servants’ pay are not new. On 30 March 1909 the Dominion newspaper criticised ‘increases which have been made in the staffing and … salaries of the Civil Service during the last 15 years, out of all proportion to the increase in the population.’4
The commission’s recommendations were included in the Civil Service Act 1866, which specified that people applying for civil service posts must be between the ages of 17 and 23 years, and had to provide evidence of good health and moral character. Later, the Civil Service Reform Act 1886 introduced competitive examinations for selection into the civil service. However, these requirements were increasingly bypassed by the ‘backdoor’ appointment of ‘temporary’ staff, many of whom were employed for lengthy periods.