"FACE UP"

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 74, 28 March 1931, Page 10

"FACE UP"

GOVERNMENT'S CASE

EEPLY TO Sill F. D. BELL

SIR T. K. SIDEY'S SPEECH

A reply to ihc case made out by the Right Hon. Sir Francis Bcli against the proposal of the Government to reduce the salaries of Civil servants was made in the Legislative Council yesterday afternoon by the Leader of the Council (the Hon. Sir Thomas Sidcy). The point of view which Sir Francis had put before the Council, said Sir Thomas, .was wholly fallacious. Sir Thomas referred to the necessity for maintaining New Zealand's high name abroad, and said that the only way that could be done was for the Dominion to face up to the present financial crisis. Keferring to the allegation that the Civil Service was asked to bear an undue proportion of the deficit, Sir Thomas said that the 50,000 ■ people were the servants of the million and a half, and were being remunerated for their service. The wholo question was whether the one and a half million were entitled to ask the 50,000 whether they should not, for their services, accept a similar reduction to that which private employers were asking their servants to accept. The relation, of servant to employer was the vital relation between the 50,000 and the million and a half. Sir Francis Bell had not made any mistake as to the view he had taken in 1922. Sir Thomas said that ho found it difficult to believe that Sir Francis Bell did not se"e that the point of view he had put before the Council was wholly fallacious. During the course of his speech, Sir Francis had stated that he had been so long a party man that two years was not long enough to free him from party spirit. That was a very frank admission, and he (Sir Thomas) would say that that admission had to be read into the wholo speech. That attitude, however unconscious on his part, was really tho explanation of tho right honourable gentleman's attitude on tho question. In former times ho was with the party; to-day he was no longer in office, but those _ who were opposed to him politically were in office. That was really tho only explanation that he (Sir Thomas) could give of the position of the right honourable gentleman. Sir Thomas Sidey said that Sir Francis Bell had referred to the Public Service, and went back to 1922. He had spoken, of the cut being inconsistent with tho conditions under which persons were invited to enter the Public Service.' That was tho attitude that he had taken up. Sir Thomas quoted from the Public Servico Act, 1912, showing that there was authority to reduce wages, and said that it could not be said that anybody was invited to enter the Public Service under a misapprehension, because they might have a cut made in their salaries. That was contemplated by the Act of 1912. "BREAKING THEIR NECKS." Comparing employment in the Public Service with outside employment, Sir Thomas said that if those receiving £450 and upwards did not compare favourably with others in outside employment, it was indisputable that those on £300 and under, in comparison with private employers, Were well paid, and were much better off than the outside man as far as sick pay, pension, etc., were concerned. That was borne out by the number who were "breaking fclieir necks" to get into the Public Service. They were anxious to get into the railway workshops and loeomotivo branch, not by hundreds, but by thousands. There were 7000 persons at the present day waiting to get into either of those branches of the Service, the other Departments all told the same thing. There was likewise a large number of cadets who could not get into the Service; and those who had left had been very glad to get back. It was clear that the great bulk of the rank and file were better off, and many of them in the lower grade were on clerical work and were single. Undoubtedly, there would be individual cases oi hardship, for instance, the man with a large family who was probably paying off his house, but the Prime Minister had agreed that a tribunal should bo set up to consider any possible cases of hardship. THE SURPLUSES. Answering further points made by Sir Francis 8011, Sir Thomas Sidey said that Sir Francis had stated that there was an accumulated surplus in tho Consolidated Fund amounting to some £2,000,000. Revenuo was falling short by a considerable sum —one and a quarter million had been stated —and it was considered that by the ,end of tho year there would remain approximately only £800,000 of that £2,000,----000. Revenue had to be anticipated and was used as working cash money. The Government could not deliberately budget for a deficit. There was an amount carried by the Post Office for replacement and renewals of assets which were of short life. Sir Francis Bell: "What do the reserves amount to?" Sir Thomas Sidey: "About £2,000,----000." He said that five or six millions would be required in the next ten years for renewals. The right honourable gentleman and his party were responsible for those reserves, and after having asked the Council to establish that Reserves Account, he said, when we had a little set-back in our finances, "Collar tho money." That was just the negation of what the right honourable gentleman asked the Council to do two years ago. Sir Thomas referred to the earthquake as an extra cause for expenditure. If it was necessary to gather the million and a half by income-tax, i the Government would have to double the existing rates and then it would be doubtful if the amount would be obtained. A large portion of income-tax was paid by private companies, and many people outside tho Public Service did not have incomes. The Arbitration Court in Australia had made a 10 per cent, cut which came into operation on ■ Ist February, and the railways in Australia were under the Arbitration Court. Sir Francis Boll: "There ia a question of tho basic wage there." NEXT YEAR'S ACCOUNTS. Sir Thomas said that Sir Francis 801 l had stated that he did not believe in the opinion of those who had prophesied how the accounts were going to turn out next year. He had stated that he thought the prophots were wrong in saying there would be a deficit of £4,500,000 unless we adjusted our expenditure. Sir Fraucis 801 l may not have been one of those who criticised the saino officers last year. When officers crime and told him that unless he did certain Ihings (licrc would be n, deficit, he would bn very nnwiso not to accept that advice. Officers h:ul to iii.iko the best tisc of the informa-

tion at their disposal early as to what would l)e the result of the next year's operations. OUR POSITION IN LONDON. The time was not veiy far distant, said Sir Thomas, when New Zealand would have to go to the London market! He could not but feel that unless Parliament faced the Question in the way it was being faced, it might seriously affect our position on the London market. Tlie financiers at Home were looking to see if New Zealand was facing the position fairly and squarely. He referred to the hold-up in the passage of legislation, and said that that was not calculated to help us. "When I was in tho Old Country," said Sir Thomas, "nothing gave me greater satisfaction than tho good name New Zealand had. Everywhere you wont the very mention of the word 'New Zealand' was received with demonstrations of approval. On the Stock Exchange our stocks were standing as high as th,e Imperial Government's themselves. One cannot but feel pride in such circumstances, and I trust that no matter what party comes into office, they will look upon the good name- of New Zealand as one of the most priceless things. If we do not face tlie situation properly to-day we may injure ourselves. There is only one way to do it, and that is in the same way as any business man would do it: face tlie situation in a manly way. When he is up against drastic cuts in his revenue, lie will make drastic cuts in his expenditure. Making a personal explanation, Sir Francis Bell said that his remarks quoted by Sir Thomas Sidey in reference to 1922 related to the cost of living bonus. He had never advocated reduced wages. LEAD TO THE COUNCIL. TJio Hon. C. J. Carringtoii congratulated the speakers in giving a leadto the Council when unity was essential. The old saying that "adversity makes friends of us all" had been exemplified in the Council. Ho believed that Sir Frauds Bell had taken the matter up solely because he believed that an injustice would be done. Reduction of costs was essential, and as far as the Civil Service was concerned, there were j only two courses: reduction in salaries lor wholesale dismissals, and if a vote of the Service were taken he claimed that there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of salary reduction. The Hon. Sir James Allen pointed ont that cuts had been made in the accumulated surpluses to balance expenditure in previous years. Was it not wise that we had put away money in prosperous times for the rainy day? Was Sir Francis Bell prepared to take the £500,000 from tho Post Office? If so, what would they do for renewals and depreciation? He claimed that as soon as tho cut was made thero would be another good fall in the cost of living, because of what statistics had shown in 1921-22. ' ! The Acidress-in-Reply was agreed to, and the Council adjourned until luesday. ■