SALARY CUT

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 1, 1 July 1922, Page 11

SALARY CUT

NO DECISION YET ISSUE DEBATED IN PARLIAMENT PRIME MINISTER, DEFINES POSITION. The Imprest Supply Bill debate in the House of Representatives yesterday hinged almost entirely around the amendment moved by the Leader of the • Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland). He moved on the motion to go into Committee on the Bill:—"That all words after 'that' be omitted, with a view of inserting the following: 'That,: as the latest figures reveal that there has been no fall in the cost of living as between March, 1920, and March, 1922, the Government was not warranted in reducing the salaries of Public servants, and therefore this House recommends that restitution should bo made, at. least to the.lower-paid employees; and' this House further recommends that it should ba immediately announced that there ■will bo no further reductions in the Public servants' salaries in July;' " This was defeated shortly after 10.30 p.m. by 38 to 19. During the debate the Prime Minister said. he could pot state the amount of the second cut until he had placed the report of the Judge of the Arbitration Court before his colleagues. ' . . ■ Mr. Holland quoted the figures produced before the Arbitration Court by Mr. M. J. Mack to show that railway men were receiving a wage which did not provide a proper standard of living, j The .surplus now being shown by the Railway Department was secured at the expense of the wage earners. The last cut had not been justified by the cost-of-living figures, and he therefore asked the House to recommend the making of restitution. To-day the whole Public Service was discontented as a result of the class tax imposed upon the service. If it were necessary to obtain more money it could be obtained by taxation, which would reach the Public servants in common with the whole of the rest of the community in proportion to their ability to pay; but the whole trend of tho Government taxation policy had been to place the burden on the shoulders of those least able to bear it; Public servants now complained that the Government reduced their salaries so that some of them had not sufficient for their families, and then the Government stepped in when they took perfectly legitimate steps to strengthen their industrial position. The attack was going beyond the Public Service and extending to outside labour. The \cont of living had not fallen in as great a ratio as the wage rates. In concluding' his speech, Mr. Holland stated that if the Government gave its members a free hand to vote as they wished, the amendment would be carried by an overwhelming majority. Mr. D. G: Sullivan (Avon) seconded the amendment, and gave instances of married, men who could not live properly on their wages. He , asked, too, ■whether section 14 of th© Public Expenditure Adjustment Act had been operative, and whether, under it, regulations had been made to meet cases of hardship. As a matter of-fact, it was not until the Gazette of 15th June that steps had been taken to set up a board to' deal with anomalies, and, by that delay, the Government had not kept faith with the House or the country.

PRIME MINISTER'S COMMENTS.

The Prime. Minister expressed surprise at the statement of the member for Buller that there had. been no reduction in the cost of living. Mr. Holland.; "I did not say that. I spoke of the ratio."

Despite what Mr. Holland had said, continued Mr. Massey, a serious loss was still being made on the railways. What some people were trying to do ■was to stir up trouble, with the Public servants simply because they represented so many votes. Mr. Massey went into past history as to the conditions in which the bonuses had. been granted and into the system on which reductions had been made. His duty was an unpleasant one, but it was in the interests of the country, and it had to be done. Mr. Sullivan: "Why did: you not apply the hardship clause?" . Mr. Massey: "The clause was there." Thase things could not be done all at once, but, ea a matter of fact, he had not had a single application fox the setting up of the board so that a case of hardship could be beard.

Having traversed the financial position (as reported elsewhere), the Prime Minister said in the good times the Government had done its share in the matter o! increases, and now it had to go' the reverse way, but it would not go more quickly than the cost-of-living figures justified. THE ALTERNATIVES. The Prime Minister went on to say that a number of suggestions had been mads as alternatives to the cut. On-e member of the House had suggested that the payment of sinking funds should be suspended. That was a very>serious thing. It was a last resource. When they went on the London market they always made a point of the fact that'they were establishing sinking funds to redeem the loan, and if they stopped making tho payments it would be a breach of contract and London would have something to say. He hoped it would never be necessary to take' such a step. Another suggestion, was that they should use the accumulated surplus. But the surplus from one year was used for expenditure, and if they commenced to u«e it for tho payment of salaries and wages it would t>e equivalent to paying wages out of capital account. It -was also suggested that instead of withdrawing the bonus they should reduce the nmnber of State employees. He did not think many peot>l'G would stand for that. They were not going to keep people employed for whom there was no work; but suppo«ing they reduced the number by 20 pet npnt., which he did not think was" possible, that woxrld mean putting ten thousand neople out of employment in tho middle of winter. He would not st^nd for that. • s Mr. W. E. P?r- '(nckland Central): * "Yet you brinjr '•" ' "—"nts in." IMMIGRANTS * Mil THE UNEMPLOYED. The Prime Minister said that only nominated immigrants bad be^n brought in W some time. Hmv?stly, he did not t.Vn'c that the immigrarrts bad had mnch to dn with the tmemnloytneret. Th,e rrtiintry ha-d had the opportunity of securimr a srood class o? immigrant, and had takin it. An alternative to the cut waa to increase taxation ; but where was the inrre»9& to come from? There was. not. jmich that escaped the In-rome Tax Department now. They could1 not go on ps they were at present. \fo:-G. Mitchell (Wellington South): "Do ynii thing the lower-paid employees are settinsr more than a living wage?" The Prime Minister: "They are not getting as much as I would like them \n .tret, but they are. getting more than '•.'■ mnntry can afford." 4 * Government Member; "They we getiMn-er more than the unemployed." V,r. Wilford: "Wli" not leave out •V-...P below £320 a year?" 'Hip Prime Minister: "Then I could not get sufficient from the higher-paid servants." ■ ■ ___ PROBABLY MOT A FULL CUT. The Prime Minister said that in spite If the talk of dissatisfaction, he bolkjwl •

that th« Government had bftated its employees well all through. The average bonus amounted to nearly £95, and he was asking for only about half that. Someone else might come aftei- him and say that more would have, to bo taken. Mr. Mitchell: "Then you propose to make the cut?" ' •

The Prime Minister said that so far as he was able to judge the decrease in the cost of Irving would not allow him, without being unfair, to make a cut such as waa made in January. Ho was not able to go further into details just now. Mr. Mitchell: "Will you base the cut on tike cost of living?" Mr. Maesey: "I cannot go further than this: that if ;the reduction in the cost of living does not warrant a full cut, )I cannot make it." There was not only the bonus for Civil servants, but there were various concessions. There was superannuation, and he doubted if the country could ,go on carrying the burden of superannuation as at present. All the funds were asking for additional State contributions, and something would have to be done this session. They could not run the risk of a crisis.

PROVISION FOR UNEMPLOYED. Referring to the current expenditure, the Prime Minister, said that a great deal of money was being spent on pubdie works—there were about 7000 men iemployod now, and that included a number on. relief works. That, expenditure could not be reduced to any great extent, as # they could not have men wandering around the country without food or shelter. In the country things were not tso bad as in the towns in so far as a Anan could generally. get his food some>how in the country; if he were willing to do any work, but in the country districts there were thousands of men. at present ■willing,to work for their keep and 20s a week. In many cases- employers, when (unable to ke«p their, hands employed, loffered to allow them to occupy their (homes and provide them with food. That was better than nothing, but it was not good fox the country to have such conditions, and he hoped that soon there ■would be an improvement and reduction of unemployment. ■ ■':. THAT JUDGE'S.REPORT. Mr. M'Combs (Lyttelton) said that it was the Judge of the Arbitration Court, not the throe men from whom Mr. Mas■sey had obtained a report, oh whose Teport the Government was bound, to act da this matter. He hoped the Judge would not be. instructed by the Government how he was to make his calculations, or how he should interpret the 'law. • . ■' ;- ) The Prime Minister said that the Judge had sent him a Teport, and had then asked for it back. He had taken it | back, and had now Teturned it—perhaps jin amended form.

Mr. M'Combs further argued that Mr. (Massey had been misleading !iu his references to the cost of living. The Govetnlment had refused to honour its pledge to •grant further increases when the cost of ■living rose above 62j>er cent: Now the Government quoted as justification for its proposed action the figures relating to the three food groups, which, represented (only a third of the cost of living. Mr. M'Combs .further contended thatr the /position of the Government and of the country was not so desperate ac to warrant the action of the Government, r ,

Mr. E. 3j Howard- (Christchurch South) argued that it was time that a fair standard: of living was defined. There'were thousands of Civil servants who were now below that etandard, and the Prime Minister had not shown any reason for a further reduction.

Mr.... F. N. Bartram (Greytown) exipressed. surprise at the Prime Minister's statement that he "cared nothing for the Judge's report." He trusted that the Judge's report would, be taken very much into. consideration. ■■ ' -.

Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) objected to the proposed cut as a class case. ": :■.■ .'•■■..- • •■■' '■'.• - .

Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) remarked that the Labour Party seemed to claim an absolute monopoly of solicitude for the interest* of the Civil Service. Tho principle of graduation shijuld have been embodied in the Act of last year. It was wrong in principle to levy on one section of the community such a huge amount of taxation—for that was what it really amounted to. Mr. Maseey interjected that the increases were bonuses—not salary. Mr. Statham replied that the Prime Minister admitted that in some cases they were not bonuses. He intended to support the amendment moved by the member for.-Boiler;' and he would do so as a protest against the proposed, second cut in public officers' salaries.'.:. '■„ Mr. ■J. W. Munro (Dunedin North), in supporting the amendment, made his maiden speech. He said that the recent election for Dunedin North was fought almost entirely in the issue now under consideration. The people of that district were entirely opposed to .what had been done, and to what was proposed to be done, by the Government. It was regarded as an injustice. He expected to see, and he thought the people of the country expected to see, the Liberal members vote with the Labour members on this question. POST AND TELEGRAPH ALLIANCE. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wilford), began his remarks by saying that he believed that no advantage would be gained by the Post and Telegraph Association joining the Alliance of Labour. He was firmly.-of opinion that the Alliance of Labour, under. its constitution, could not' function for State servants in their relations between the employees of the Public Service and the State. Mr. Speaker said under the Standing Orders the lion, member could not discuss that matter on the present motion. Mr. Wilford said he would probably deal with the matter again on another occasion. Proceeding, he said that he would do all he could tp prevent a cut being made in the wages of the lowerpaid servants of tho State. The policy of the Reform Party in regard to the salaries of Civil servants was a cut from the General Manager of Railwaysi to the office-boy. The policy of the Labour Party would be: "No cut on anybody." The policy of his (Mr. Wilford's) party was to wait until the Bill was in Committee; then to make reductions in the amounts paid to the general manager, Ministers, and members ; then they did their best to prevent any cut in sialaries from £320 downwards. The speech of the Prime Minister contained no- argument in favour of making the proposed cut against a particular section of the people. All that the Prime Minister had said proved the necessity for economy, wise administration, and care. Nothing that " the Prime Minister had said_ led him to believe that a particular section of the public should be picked out for special adverse treatment. The cat which.had been made in the large salaries was not anything like so ssvere as the effect of the cut as felt by the lower-paid officer. There were many other avenues from which money could be obtained •.vithout attacking a second time the lower-paid men in the Civil Service. He intended to support any motion to prevent (as he did in February last) any cut being made in th 9 lower-paid men.

. Mr. ,W. A. Veitch, (Wanganui) said ho would oppose any reduction in the salaries of the Civil Service, because it amounted to special taxation of a particular class. The Prime Minister was doing a grave injustice to. the country in enforcing, his own opinion in the House. Rather than iiiake a

cut in wages, tho Government should look for economies in administration. : WANT OF CANDOUR. Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) charged the Prime Minister with a want of candour in regard to the report of the Judge of the Arbitration Court. The Prime Minister should explain why he had not made the economics suggested by the Economies Board instead of again attacking the wages of Civil servants. Practical experience ■ showed that the cost of living had not fallen.

MR. MITCHELL'S. ALTERNATIVE. Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) emphasised strongly the necessity of Hiving special consideration to the married man with a family; and in respect lo the cost of living every effort should be made to ease the burdens he had to bear. He (Mr. .Mitchell) was prepared to hand over another £50 of hiß salary rather than there should be a further reduction made in the pay of men on the bread-and-butter line. He believed that by taking a little off the men with £320 and over; by reducing staffs as far as possible without hardship to anyone ; by re-imposing the 10 per cent, rebate ou large estates (of, say, over .£20,000); by re-imposing the 5 per cent, on incomes (say, over £600 a year); he believed by those means—with a little move economy in administration — the Government would get more than would be received from tlie cut in salaries. i ■ ; Mr. Massey: "You could not get a tenth of it in that way." Mr. G. Mitchell maintained that reducing the wages of the lower-paid Civil servants would mean inflicting hardships on many families. EVERYONE MUST SHARE. ■. The Minister of Labour (the Hon. G. J.; Anderson) contended that the members of the Government were just as anxious to do justice to the Civil Service as any other members of the House. It had been the duty of the Government to try to put the finances of the country on if proper footing, and to bring the expenditure within the revenue. ■.•■■■.-.■■■■ Mr. Holland: "You are injuring the poor man." . ■'.-■.'■ ' Mr. Anderson denied that they were injuring the poor man; but the poor man had to take his share of the burden as well as anyone else. He knew of farmers who had paid their last land tax out of overdraft. He quoted figures, which he contended showed clearly that if there were to be a cut in salaries that cut must spread over the lower paid as wellas the higher paid;" otherwise," remarked the Minister, " we 1* might as well cut the whole thing out." Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) j expressed the opinion _ that the suggestion of the representatives of Labour should have been agreed to before the Arbitration Court gave its decision reducing wages. That1 suggestion was that there should have been a national investigation into the question of the cost of living and the basic wage. THE AMENDMENT DEFEATED. A division, on Mr. Holland's amendment was taken at 10.45 p.m., the amendment being rejected by 38 to. 19, the division list being :-^- ' T i Against the amendment (38): Anderson, Bitchener, Bollard, Burnett, Campbell, Coates, Craigie, J. : MC. Dickson, J.. S. Dickson, Dixon, Field, Guthrie, J. R. Hamilton; Harris, Herries, Hockly, Hunter, Luke, M'Leod, M'Nicol, Mackenzie, Malcolm,gander, Massey, Nash, E. Newman,; Nosworthy, Parr, Pomare, Potter, Reed, Sir R. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Stewart, Sykes, Uru, Williams, and Young. . For the amendment (19): -Atmore, Bartram, Edie, Fraser, Holland, Horn, Howard, Jennings, M'Combs, Muhrb, Parry, Poland, Savage, Seddon, Sidey, S. G. Smith, Statham, Veitch, arid Wilford.' ■• ■ „•. ■■ ;•■•■ I/"- ' • .■■■■;-.■ Pairs.,—Against the amendment:: Leo, Jones, A. Hamilton, Hudson, Glenn,! and Hawker. • i For the amendment: Sullivan, Witty, .M'Callum, Thacker, Wright, Mitchell.. "The' Bill was put through all stages and passed at 11.50 p:m.