THE PUBLIC SERVICE

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 107, 7 May 1923, Page 5

THE PUBLIC SERVICE

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENTS

A CONTRADICTION.

Mr. F. W. Millar, general secretary of the Public Service Association, referring to the Prime Minister's reply to tho criticism of the latter's remarks in regard to salaries in the Public Service made immediately prior to the Oamaru by-election, said: "If there is'any subject which on account of the controversy it has created the Prime Minister should have full knowledge of it is the question of Public Service salary increases and reductions; yet in his statement which appears in the morning papers he shows either a lamentable ignorance or he is. deliberately miatating the position." The £95 gross salary increase to which' he refers was never granted in the form of a bonus; £45 of the amount was granted as the result of an amendment of the salary scale secured at the general re-grading of the Public Service in 1919, and it was obtained without any condition whatever as to the trend of the cost of living. The remaining £50 was secured as from Aril, 1920, as the result of pressure by the Public Service Associations for salary increases to meet the increased living cost. In our negotiations with the Government in regard to this £50 increase, one of our main efforts was to secure the increase by way of salary (not bonus), and this was conceded by the representatives of the Government appointed to deal with us (Messrs. F. V. Frazer, W. R. Morris, R. W. M'Villy, and A. Ti Marmkman). The Prime Minister's statements that any portion of this £95 was incorporated as salary merely for accounting purposes, or that superannuation deductions were made on the full amount granted was solely a concession for the benefit of officers who may have been retired before cost of living increases were adjusted, have no foundation in fact. His remark that the cost of living had not entered into the increases granted to higher officers, their salaries having been adjusted after comparison with rates of wages paid in commercial circles, is also not correct, for these officers (apart from the few officers in the administrative division) received; the £50 increase in 1920 on the same terms as the lower paid officer*. That the 1920 salary increase was subject to" reduction in the,event of the cost of living falling was understood by th* service delegates, but the Prime Minister had consistently alleged that any reductions were to be determined by the position of the three food groups. This association has repeatedly challenged him on this point, and'stated publicly that it was prepared to stand or fall on a report, from the Uniformity Committee. ' The fact, that he has failed to produce such is significant. The association is more fortunate in regard to the increases, however, for it has a signed agreement as to the amount, the officers to, whom it shall apply, also that such increases were to be merged in salary by legislative enactment which was actually carried out.