CIVIL SERVANTS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 30 March 1931, Page 3

CIVIL SERVANTS

SALARY CUTS SIR T. K. SiDEY REPLIES TO SIR F. D. BELL GOVERNMENT'S CASK STATED (From “The Mail’s” Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, 28th March. A reply to the ease made out by the Right lion. Sir Francis Bell against the proposal of the Government to reduce the salaries of Civil servants was made in the Legislative Council yesterday alternoon by the Leader ol the Council (the lion! Sir Thomas Sidey). The point of view which Sir l'rancis had put before the Council, said Sir Lhomas, was wholly fallacious. Sir J horn as referred to tiie necessity lor 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. Referring to the allegation that the Civil Service was asked to bear un undue proportion ol the deficit, Sir l homes said that the 50.000 people were the servants of the million and a halt and were being remunerated for their service. The whole 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 t lie view he had taken in 1922. Sir Thomas said that he found it difficult to believe that Sir Francis Bell did not see that the point of view ho 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 be (Sir Thomas) would say that that admission had !o he read into the whole speech. That attitude, however unconscious on liis part, was really the explanation of the right honourable gentleman’s attitude on the question. Tn former times he was with the party; to-day lie was no longer in office. That was really the 1 only explanation that he (Sir Thomas) could give of the position of the right honourable gentleman. Sir Thomas Sidey said that Sir Francis Roll bad referred to the Public Service, and went back to 1922. 11c had spoken of the cut being inconsistent with the conditions under which persons were invited to enter the Public Service. That was the attitude that he had taken, tip. Sir Thomas quoted from (the Public Service Act, 1912, showing that there was authority to reduce wages, and said that it could not ho 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 receivin'- £450 and upwards did not compare favourably with others in outside employment, it was indisputable that those on £3OO 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 their necks” to get into the Public Service. They were anxious to get into the railway workshops and locomotive 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, and the other Departments all told the same thing. There was likewise a large number of cadets who could not get into the

Service; and lhose who bad left, had been very glad to "el back. J.t was clear that the great bulk ol the rank and file were better olt, and many of them in the lower grade were, on clerical work and were single. Undoubtedly, there would be individual cases ol hardship, for instance, the man with a large family who was probably paying off bis bouse, but the Prime Minister bad agreed that a tribunal should be set up to consider any possible cases of hardship. THE SURPLUSES

Answering further points made by Sir Francis Bell, Sir Thomas Sidey said that Sir Francis bad stated that there was an accumulated surplus in the Consolidated Fund amounting to some £2.000,000. Revenue was falling short by a considerable sum—one and a quarter million bad been stated—and it was considered that by the end of the year there would remain aproxiinutely only £BOO,OOO of that £2,000,000. Revenue bad 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 li fc Sir Francis Bell: “What do the reserves amount to?” Sir Thomas Sidey: "About £2,000,OCO.” 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 Cor those reserves, and after having asked the Council to establish that Reserves Account, lie said, when we had a. httle set-back in our finances, “Collar the money.” That was just the negation of w'liat the right honourable gentleman asked the Council to do two years 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, 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 the 1 üblic 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 m Australia were under the Arbitration Court. Sir Francis Bell: “ThereJs a question of the basic wage there.”

NEXT YEAR’S ACCOUNTS Sir Thomas said that Sir l'rancis Pell had stated that he did not believe m the opinion of those who had prophesied how the accounts were going to turn out next year. He had stated that lie thought the prophets were wrong in saying there would he a fiericit of £4,500,000 unless we adjusted our expenditure. Sir Francis Pell may not have been one of those who criticised the same officers last year. When officers came and told him that unless he did certain things there would be a deficit, he would be very unwise not to accept that advice. Officers had to make the best use of the information at their disposal early as to what would he the result of the next year s operations.

OUR POSITION IN LONDON

The. time was not very far distant, said Sir Thomas, when New Zealand would have to go to the London market, .lie 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. The financiers at Home were looking to see if New Zealand was facing tlie 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 the Old Country,’ said Sir Thomas, “nothing gave me greater satisfaction than the good name New Zealand had. Everywhere you went 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 the Imperial Government’s themselves. One cannot but feel pride in such circumstances, and 1 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 W e do not face the 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 the 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 li is remarks quoted by Sir Thomas Sidey in reference in 1922 related to the cost of living bonus, lie had never advocated reduced wages.

LEAD TO THE COUNCIL The Hon. C. J. Carrington congratulated the speakers in giving a lead to the Council when unity was essential. The old saying that “adversity makes friends of us all'’ had been exemplified in the Council. He believed that Sir Francis 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 only two courses: reduction in salaries or wholesale dismissals, and if a vote of the Service w r ere taken he claimed that there would be an overwhelming rote in favour of salary reduction. The lion. Sir James Allen pointed out 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 lo take the £500,000 from the Post Office? If so, what would they do for renewals and depreciation? He claimed that as soon as the eiit was made there would he another good fall in the cost of diving, because of what statistics had shown in 1921-22. The Address-in-Reply was agreed to and the Council adjourned until Tuesday.