PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19787, 27 November 1929, Page 10

PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES.

CASE OF LOWER WAGE MEN. PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY TO MR COATES. [THE PEESS Special Service] WELLINGTON, Xoveniber 20. The following official reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Coates') on behalf of the United Party was made to-day by the Prime Minister (.Sir Joseph 'Ward): "I regret to observe that what appears to be nothing less than political •bidding' for the Public Service vote is being indulged in by the leaders of certain political parties iii the Dominion, and it is fairly transparent that these very undesirable tactics are being waged in the hope that they may have a direct bearing on the approaching Hutt by-election. •'The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Coates) has entered the lists, and states that with a full sense of responsibility he is prepared to increase by £ls per annum the maxima for officers at the £240, £250, and £295 limits. May I ask him, seeing that since the retrenchment and red ictions in the salaries of public servants by the Reform Government in 1922 there have been numerous surpluses in the Consolidated Fund at the end of the successive financial years, why the Reform Government did nothing in this direction of increasing the salaries of these grades in the Service? It cannot be claimed that they had no opportunity of so doing. On the contrary, they brought about reductions in taxation, which certainly did not directly benefit the lower paid classes of our community, and they did not evince in a practical manner the sympathetic consideration for the public servants which they now profess.

Statements Analysed. "Analysing the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition, it would appear: "(1) That the Reform Government promised the public servants when the 'cuts' were made in 1922 that their position would he reviewed at the earliest possible moment that the finances of the country permitted. "(2) That, having given an undertaking before the last elections that the amount of increase to be granted to public, servants would be considered by April, 1029, at the latest, he suggested last session some immediate increases in the maxima of the men on the lower grades. "(?,) That having seen the accounts for the half-year, he (Mr Coates-) is prepared to increase by £ls per annum the maxima for men at the £240, £265, and £295 limits. "It is evident from the last two statements mentioned that while the right hon. gentleman refers in his statement to the reclassification of 1924, the references quoted show that the promise made by the Reform Government to the public servants in 1922 is evidently considered not yet fully honoured by that Part}'. Yet when the Reform Party was in office in the House what happened? Notwithstanding substantial reductions in taxation and charges of a total annual value of about £3,(100,000. surpluses were shown as follows:—l 922-23, £1,315.033: 1923-24, £l,Sl2,.*Sfis; 1924-25, £1.243,800; 1925•2i'.. £1,155,679; 1926-27, £587,142. Under these circumstances why did not the Reform Party carry out what they now maintain is required-lo fully honour the promise given in 1922?

£300,000 Per Annum. "To giant the increases now recommended "by the Loader of the Opposition '\voulcl cost approximately £300,000 per annum, quite apart from the question of whether the increases mentioned arc warranted from the point of view of the value of the work done and the disrupting effect on the whole scheme of classification. The current year's linances were reviewed by the ActingLeader of the House, on my behalf, in the closing hours of the session, when it. Mas pointed out that the concessions subsequently granted on the Budget proposals absorbed any margin there might have been, and that the finances for the year will have to be tightly held if the year is to close without a deficit. "Mr Coates makes reference to tho six months' figures, but these were reviewed in the House just before the session closed. An analysis of the position and the prospects showed that there was no justification for assuming that there would be any additional revenue available for any purpose. Thus the Right Honourable gentleman must know that his recommendation could not be given effect to this year without a deficit or increased taxation. The former the Government could not x )OS " sibly agree to, and as for the latter, it will*be remembered that the Opposition strenuously opposed the increases that were necessary to rectify the position arising out of last year's deficit. "No Government could at a juncture like the present authorise a general increase in salaries without having Parliamentary sanction. The meresi tyro in finance must know that a Government must wait until the financial results are ascertained at the close of each year's working be-fore embarking upon a programme of increased expenditure during the following financial vear.

"It must be remembered also that one of the most pressing problems that faced the country during last session was that of unemployment, and what the Government has achieved in a practical manner has met .with universal appreciation. All that has undoubtedly ndded to the demands upon the financial resources of the country. The Government's Sympathy. "I reiterate in the strongest manner possible that the Government is sympathetic to the claims of the lower paid officers of the Public Service for increased remuneration. This is fully home out by the statement made on my hchalf bv the Acting-Leader of the House towards the close of the last session. The following is an extract f;om the 'Hansard' report:—

"'The Prime Minister has authorised me to say that if the revenue returns prove greater than the Estimates, and he is able to show a sur--7 ;us at the end of the financial year, he will be very pleased then to go into the question and try to meet to some ,'i':svnt. if not in full, the requests :iiat are being made by the lower paid i.'i'.-n in the Public Service, Those are ihp men who are the concern not o:i!v of the Government, but of every n'einber of the House. If anything c'.uld be done to improve their position I am sure that we would all be ~,.ir ton pleased to do it. If at the ,-!].;' of the financial year the finances warrant it, the Prime Minister will r.'-'.nsi'ier the position and will be agreeable that any increases made si.aildatc from the Ist April, 1930. I think that that is going as far as it -■=,' prudent for any Minister for Fin- ■ it f to go. The Prime Minister reverv much that the present Btate

of the country's finances will Tiot allow of the increases being granted, t>ut he docs not—neither uoes ar>y niember of tlic liovernnicin —go back "li anything that has liceu sai.] in previous sessions to the effect that we wish to .'.o all we can to help the Public Service. We sympathise -With the public servants, particularly with the lower paid men, hut wo are up against a rinaneial stringency and we have to recognise, that the interests of the coir: T "v ; is a whole come before the interests of any one section. ' ' T

THE LABOUR LEADER. MR COAXES CHARGED WITH EVASION. v rar,ss association telegram.i "WESTPORT, November 20. Mr Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, has handed to the Press the following rejoinder to Mr Coates: — '■ln his reference to the salary reductions made by the Reform Government in 1022, Mr Coates wholly evades the point made by me that at the time the cuts were made the Budget for the previous vear showed a cash balance of more than £6.000,000, while accumulated surpluses amounted to well over £2.'!,0<.m>,000. He also evades my statement, that while the Public Service cuts ('according to the then Minister for Finance) were estimated to save £BOO,OOO to the State, tax reductions to wealthy landowners and others were estimated'to lose to the State more than £900,000 under the 1922 legislation, with nearly a quarter of a million additional under the legislation of 1023, clearly establishing that the remissions to a comparatively small number of wealthy taxpayers were made at the expense of the public servants. "Mr Coates recalls the Reform Government's promise to the public servants that 'their position would be reviewed at the earliest possible moment when the finances of the country permitted.' I have shown that in 1022 the nuances of the country were in such a healthy condition that salary cuts were wholly unnecessary, and, therefore, unjustified, but still they were made. Furthermore, in later years, when nearly every member of Mr Coates's Cabinet' was proclaiming that the Dominion had turned the corner and that the Reform Party's administration had brought an era of prosperity, Mr Coates was persistently, even inconsistently, resisting every endeavour to have salary improvements made. "As late as the closing hours of the 1928 session he* was leading his Party into the lobby to vote down a motion for the restoration of the conditions of the 1920 agreement made with the public servants by bis own Government, and on the hustings in the same year he was declaring that no public service officer was then suffering from the effects of the Public Expenditure Adjustment Act. It may also be as well to recall that when the Post and Telegraph representatives in 1928 pointed to the fact that the income of the Department exceeded the expenditure by over £1,000,000, and reminded the Government of Sir James Parr's promise made in 1925, that success on a commercial basis would make the time opportune for urging salary improvements, they were told that, notwithstanding what the profits of the Department might be in future, the Government had decided that the existing maxima provided adequate remuneration for rank and file duties. That showed that Mr Coates was determined to hold the public servants down to the existing maxima. "Hansard teems with division lists which emphasise this fact, and consequently Mr Coates need not now be surprised that both the general public and the public servants are disinclined to take his death-bed repentance pronouncements of to-day as having any material foundation of sincerity. It is conducive to merriment to find Mr Coates pleading as an excuse for his vote against the Labour motion and in support of the United Government that the motion was worded so as not to embarrass the Government. That ludicrous excuse has not any greater degree of sincerity than the right hon. gentleman's reasons for his unbroken record of administrative and legislative opposition to salary improvements, but if he felt that, unlike Messrs Wright, Samuel, and Macmillan, he could not support the motion, why did not he himself move a motion to express what he now says he and his Party stand for! "As Leader of the Opposition he must have been called before myself, or any other private member. The reason why Mr Coates didnH so move is, of course, that any motion moved by him in condemnation of the United Government's failure to keep faith with the public servants could only have constituted a repudiation of his own policy. His vote to save the United Government was, after all, only a vote of justification of his own' line of conduct.

"Finally, Mr Coates's gesture regarding the £IOO bonus will not be likely to help him much, especially in view of the decision arrived at by his own Party caucus. The stinging" breach-of-faith charge made against him on the floor of the House in this connexion by Mr Harris (Reform, Waitemata) is sufficient comment at this stage."

A RUMOUR DENIED. (PKBS9 ASSOCIATIOH TBLEGBAM.) WELLINGTON, November 26. "Is it a real rumour?" smilingly enquired the Minister for Lands (Hon. Mr Forbes), when confirmation or otherwise of a report current in Wellington that the Government proposed to grant public servants a bonus at Christmas was sought. Upon being assured that the rumour was stated to be not without foundation, the Minister replied, "Well, that is the first I have heard of it."