I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1) to delete all words after the word "Government" where that word first occurs, and insert instead the words "on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commissioners".
I put this amendment down in very simple form in order to test the principle. I feel that, if the Minister were to accept the amendment and the House were to pass it, other parts of the section would need to be amended. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 provides that the Registrar of Titles shall be appointed by the Government and shall hold office at the pleasure of the Government. Other sub-sections in
Section 7 then proceed to make the Registrar of Titles a civil servant, that is to say, they proceed to bring him under the Superannuation Acts and to give him all the rights of a civil servant, subject only to the overriding proviso in sub-section (1) that he shall be appointed solely by the Government. It may be said with truth that under Section 1 no qualifications whatever are prescribed for the Registrar of Titles. He must be a barrister or solicitor who has practised his profession for not less than eight years. But that in effect may be so interpreted as to mean nothing at all. A man may be a barrister for eight years and be on the hazard and be practising his profession and never get a brief. Conceivably such a person might be appointed if we were to leave the matter as it appears in the Bill. I am not suggesting that anything as bad as that would be done by this or any other Government. But the qualifications that purport to be prescribed here might in fact be entirely evaded in so far as they mean that the person should have any real knowledge of the practice or theory of law.
It seems to me that the Registrar of Titles should be a person with administrative and legal qualifications. The section does provide that a person who has been in a situation in the Civil Service, and has a legal degree either as barrister or solicitor, may be deemed to be practising his profession. If the intention were to appoint somebody from the Civil Service, then I think there would be no cause at all for disquietude. But I do not see any reason why the Civil Service Commissioners should not issue an advertisement and nominate a Registrar of Titles to the Government for appointment, as they do for a great many other offices. They could in that a way appoint a civil servant, and I would have no objection at all to a civil servant being promoted to that a particular post. I do not want to make the case that if a civil servant were to be appointed he should be appointed by way of the Civil Service Commission, but I think the commissioners will require to issue a new certificate.
It seems to me in this case, as in many other case, that it would be better to proceed by way of advertisement and a selection board on known qualifications and experience rather than by way of patronage. I think in the end it will be less trouble for the Minister and more creditable for everybody concerned. I think the Minister is aware that a number of other appointments of a similar nature have frequently been made both by the last Government and this Government. For example, examiners in the Land Commission, and I think certain assistant solicitors in the Revenue Department have been appointed in this particular manner by advertisement and selection. I put forward the idea that, instead of the Government being given carte blanche to appoint a person from outside whose only qualification may be his political affiliations, there should be an appointment through the Civil Service Commission machinery which is used for most of the Civil Service posts. I feel that this particular person should have administrative experience as well as legal qualifications, and I am putting it to the Minister on that ground.
