The three per cent blues hit Wellington

Press, 29 May 1982, Page 14

The three per cent blues hit Wellington

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

> in Wellington

Morale in many government departments' head offices in Wellington is.sinking. In some departments it has fallen to the lowest level I have seen in seven years as the Wellington reporter of “The Press.” This sinking morale is being reflected within the Wellington community. Many people in Wellington feel both frightened and insecure.

Many things have contributed to this decline in morale. But the one new. element is the planned three per cent cut in government department spending. In these departments where a high percentage of the annual budget is spent in salaries, and in special projects which employ experts and part-time personnel, the fear of what the cuts will mean is greatest. Take for example the case of the illustrator employed parttime by one department. She is separated with one child, and able to supplement contributions from her former husband by practising her skill within the Public Service." But the extension and communication activities of the department where she works have been cut back sharply. She is now out of work, unlikely to get work for which she is trained, unwilling to relinquish child care by getting a full-time job somehere, and so is applying

for the domestic purposes benefit.

Multiply this case throughout the government departments and agencies and you have an idea of what a three per cent cut means in human terms, as distict from economic terms. The Public Service Association and Combined State Unions are very worried about what the effect of the cuts will be on their membership and, in terms of what it may mean to some individuals, they are right to be worried. Details of the three per cent cuts for most departments are being kept under tight security until the Budget—for which no firm date has been set but which is expected to be in midJuly. Some departments have broken this embargo, in part, but most are sticking faithfully to it although a specific enquiry as to the fate of a project usually gets a straightforward answer.

There are two different attitudes to the pending cuts within the departments, and which one is held usually depends on the nature of the department. There is also a (smaller) group of departments—such as the Department of Lands and Survey—which is trying to cope with the situation by seeking to expand their work at the expense of other departments.

Lands and Survey is trying to drag the Wildlife Service and Commission for the Environment within its structure.

Then there are departments which are coping by fighting back. Thus, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is trying to stave off claims to fresh water fisheries activities under its control by promoting legislation which would confirm its tenure of the activity. But most departments are making a predictable response. There are departments, such as the Department of Social Welfare, which spend nearly their intire annual budget (S3OOOM in this case) in payments to the public. Less than two per cent of its expenditure is on salaries, so looking at salaries to effect a three per cent cut makes no sense. There is little reason for its staff to feel insecure.

Then there are departments, such as the Department of Education, which spend nearly all their budget on salaries each year. Also, Education spends a lot of its money on special projects, studies, research, extension work and communication. These can all be cut back without in any way affecting its core activities—unlike Social Welfare.

Attitudes also vary between, and sometimes within, departments as to how much staff

can be told. The Government decided the three per cent cuts would be made immediately after its re-election last December, and most of the work was done by the officials in January. and February. Three and maybe four months have gone by since this work was done.

In some departments, the recommendations of the officials have not been accepted yet; in others the officials had several goes at putting together an acceptable package. In these departments both senior officials and ordinary staff are still wondering what the cuts will be.

But in most departments it is now settled what the cuts will be. The drawback is that senior officials are unable to tell ordinary staff which projects will be cut, and by how much, and which staff will no longer be involved in their previous activities. This is a debilitating situation, leading to both insecurity and fear. Rather than a clearcut pattern. the Public Service is reacting to the prospect of three per cent cuts in expenditure in a multitude of ways. But the prospect of the cuts, and doubts over their nature and consequences, are debilitating morale in many areas and probably leading to reduced productivity as well. The sooner the details can be announced the better for everyone.