The Press MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1965. A House With The Job

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30711, 29 March 1965, Page 10

The Press MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1965. A House With The Job

Paparua Prison officers should be prepared to argue their case for higher salaries or lower rents on its merits, without recourse to side issues such as the security of the prison. Their spokesman has said that if they decided to live away from the institution (instead of in the departmental houses on the premises) this might “ seriously jeopardise the security “ of the institution and also the safety of the Christ- “ church community ”. This implied threat to undermine the security of the prison should be withdrawn. If it is essential, in the interests of security —as it may well be—for at least a proportion of the warders to be housed on the premises, that should be a condition of their employment. An applicant for certain positions on the prison staff would then realise that living in a departmental house, at a stated rent, was, no less than his salary, an indispensable part of his contract. In accepting the offer of a stated wage or salary at the commencement of his employment, a prison officer does not thereby cede his right to ask for higher pay as time, and inflation, go by. Nor can his employer, the State, be denied the right to revise rents; for houses cost more to build and maintain as the years go by. Prison officers are not the only public servants living in departmental houses whose rents are about to be increased. Other departments mentioned in the recent statement by the secretaryorganiser of the Canterbury section of the Public Service Association (Mr A. H. Strong) were the Forestry Department and the Electricity Department. It is true, as Mr Strong says, that in areas such as Lake Coleridge and the State forests, the workers must have houses on the departmental estate. The State cannot expect to charge the same rent for a house at Lake Coleridge, for instance, as for a similar house in Christchurch, even though the Lake Coleridge house may cost more to build. The State, like any other landlord, must have regard to market values as well as to costs; and the State, like any other employer, must be prepared to offer perquisites, such as free or subsidised housing, to attract workers to less-favoured localities or occupations. Few persons would live in a prison or a forest from choice; most of the resident employees are reluctant tenants. The employer-landlords and their employee-tenants need to show unusual tact and understanding in their dealings with each other over pay and rent. These qualities are lacking if the Treasury insists on recovering the costs of housing, irrespective of situation and circumstances. They are also lacking if the Public Service Association denies the Government its rights as an employer and as a landlord to correct anomalies.