INCIPIENT "CAVE."

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 139, 13 June 1936, Page 14

INCIPIENT "CAVE."

N.S.W. GOVERNMENT. MEMBERS ADMONISHED. VOTED WITH LANGITES. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, June 4.

During the current session and more particularly since the departure of the Premier for London, the rank and file of the Nationalists have tended to get out of hand and on several occasions the Government has been embarrassed by the independent action of these "disloyalists." A climax to these minor acts of disaffection was reached last Wednesday when, during the debate on the Transport Act, it was moved that the- House "as a matter of urgency" should discuss the effects of the Act on feeder-bus operators.

The people concerned had petitioned the House for consideration of their claims in October last, and some important commercial interests are evidently involved. The acting-Premier, Mr. Bruxner, however, declined to accept the "urgency" motion and oil a division the Government was beaten by 35 votes to 31 —no less than seven United Australia party members crossing tlio floor of the Hoyse to Tote with the Langites. The Labour Opposition was, of course, jubilant and called loudly on Mr. Bruxner to resign. Of course the defeat, though annoying, did not touch any vital feature of the Government's policy, and the acting-Premier could afford to brush it aside. As Leader of the party, Mr. Bruxner naturally felt compelled to take notice of this open defiance of his authority. He promptly moved the adjournment of the House, and it is understood that tlio members of this incipient "cave" have been severely admonished. Warning to Disloyalists. The acting-Premier went so far as to warn the "disloyalists" that any repetition of. such acts of rebellion might be followed by his resignation and an appeal to the country. Another election would be much less serious to the Nationalist party than to certain individual members of it whose seats are notoriously insecure, and no doubt tlii* warning, emphasised and accentuated with appropriate dignity by the "Sydney Morning Herald" in an editorial on "Government Disloyalists," will have its due effect.

But an even more exciting episode in the political developments of the week was the bitter controversy that arose over the Public Service Salaries Bill. This measure was in eff.cct a reenaetment of the Public Service Salaries Act which was really a feature of the Premier's plan and provided for certain reductions in the salaries of all public servants. Originally the Act was timed to expire on June 30, 1934. But it has always been understood that the restoration of wages and salary "cuts" must depend on the return of complete financial stability, and the Government has declined to give the public servants the preferential treatment that they demand.

During- the last election campaign Mr. Stevens definitely promised that the public service "cuts" would be restored as soon as circumstances would permit. But he and his colleagues contend that the remission is not yet practicable, and they refuse to sacrifice the financial interests of the State and the financial claims of other sections of the community to the public servants. Of course, this rejection does not constitute "repudiation" of a promise, as the public servants and their Langite allies contend.

Government Antagonised. But the public servants, or at least their official representatives, have worked themselves up into such an acrimonious and irrational frame of mind that they have alienated a great deal of public sympathy and definitely antagonised the Government. Not long ago they were threatening to take sides against Mr. Stevens at the polls; and last Tuesday they held a largelyattended mass meeting at the corner of Macquarie Street and Martin Place, opposite Parliament House, to give expression to their feelings and voice their demands. An attempt was made to submit a petition to the House, and a ' deputation approached the sacred precincts for that purpose. But the gates were closed against them and large numbers of them had to be <jcontent with "demonstrating" in Macquarie Street outside Parliament House during the afternoon and evening. In the meantime the Government —which is not inclined to spend. £1,000,000 in conferring special privileges on the public servants at the expense of all the rest of the taxpayers —was putting the bill through with all possible speed against strenuous opposition. The climax of the debate was reached in the evening, when Mr. J. C. Boss (U.A.P. member for Kojarah and a notorious "rebel") proposed an amendment that would have cut short the operation of the Act by the end of November, instead of prolonging the "cuts" for at least another year. "That Rabble." Mr. Spooner, who is in charge of the till, was naturally incensed by this further act of rebellion and in his indignation he very ill-advisedly referred to the demonstrations outside as "that rabble" —an unfortunate epithet that will be long remembered, to the further detriment of his popularity. However, Mr. Spooner also assured the House that the Government would take the claims of the public servants into consideration again when the Budget was being prepared. Belying on this nearly all the Nationalists obediently followed their leader. Mr. Ross was left alone in solitude with the Langites, and his amendment was rejected by 78 votes to 29. The closure was then applied relentlessly and the bill was forced through all its stages without further trouble.

This interesting debate and the minor "crisis" that if produced revealed clearly two important facts—that the United Australia party leaders cannot always exercise control over the rank and file of the party and that there is a strong body of public feeling behind the demand for complete restoration of the civil service "cuts." I have discussed this last question before, but I may endorse my own arguments with quotations from the "Sydney Morning Herald," which in dealing with such matters by the processes of logical analysis is always at its best. The "Herald" makes this telling point, that, in reproaching the Government for not restoring their "cuts," tho public servants are regarding the Government as if it were simply a private employer

and not the controlling body to which the financial and administrative interests of the whole community arc committed. Welfare of the Public. "The Government must look at the matter from the point of the welfare of the general public and the present state of the State finances"; and this being so, "why should public servants, as one section, 'benefit by complete restoration of salaries whilst some workers are still unemployed and the general taxpayer continues to suffer 'emergency' taxation?" The "Herald" also deals most effectively with the complaint of the public servants that they have lieen singled out for specially rigorous treatment. "They have suffered reductions in salary. But they have not suffered as much as those who, in commerce and industry, felt the worst blast of the depression. Many persons have lost their positions, some are still unemployed. During the bad years the Public Service was not retrenched, and no public servants lost their jobs. The Government saved them from the storm. They enjoyed security of tenure. It is only fair that they should not have it both ways in getting further advantages bv salary restorations before the Budget is completely balanced and the unemployment problem is finally solved." This is perhaps hardly a complete statement of the case, but most of the points raised well deserve careful consideration by public servants throughout Australia and in New Zealand as well.