RETRENCHMENT: WHERE?

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9098, 5 July 1888, Page 3

RETRENCHMENT: WHERE?

TO THE EDITOR. ,

Sir,—While there is an almost universal acknowledgment that retrenchment is absolutely unavoidable, there is a very great difference of opinion as to where this retrenchment must begin, or end. Last night's meeting was only another example of how willing we all are to " shed the last) drop of our brother's blood," so long as wo keep our own skins untouched. Even among the (apparently) ardent economists these differences ~of opinion exist. For example, one economist hints at reducing wages in the subordinate ranks of "officialism, and at once he is met by a cry from those who value the favour (of course not the votes) of the Government employees, " You must not touch these." Another talks of using the pruning hook freely among the higher officials, and there is a still greater outcry, and intimations that " Red-tape " ill nob be retrenched, but will claim his pension. A third economist says: " The pension system is unjust, and should be overhauled." At once there is a cry; those persons are sacred,» and must not be touched. A fourth says : "Retrench in the great ocean mail . services," and two bodies of objectors crop up. The Canterbury men say : " Yes do away with the San. Francisco service, but keep up the direct one." The Aucklanders say : "Abolish the direct, but keep the San Francisco." A fifth retrencher points to . the Education Department, and a roar against meddling with that comes up. Meanwhile our burdens, already too heavy to be borne, are being increased, and every prospect of another large deficiency next year to be met (how?), and so on to the end of the chapter. Those of us who have made up our minds to stick to the colony at all hazards, need to consider well, and ought after full consideration to act. We "cannot bear" the burdens that we have tacitly allowed to be placed on our backs. We ought to say, we will not provide the wherewithal to continue these extravagances. There is no sound reason why Government employes should be paid higher rates than private employes can afford to pay. All Acts of permanent appropriation, pension, &c., ought to be repealed ; and all official salaries except those of the Judges of the Supreme Court, brought under review of the House every year. While the higher ranks of our official army should be freely pruned, the lower ranks also should not be passed over; our ocean steam services : should, and ought to be, reducod; the education vote • should be largely reduced; there is no sound reason why our standards of age should not be curtailed at both ends, say, starting at six and ending at twelve ; the many other extravagances of the educa-. tional system pruned freely, and (heresy although it may be deemed) I maintain that those who support a moderate retrenchment in the Education Department are the truest friends and supporters of our system of free and secular education, and those who oppose all reform are likely to bring ib down with a crash. If our rulers say Victoria pays such and such rates, and we will have similar rates, we should reply, "If you want Victorian rates, go to Victoria for them." If half of our officials would take themselves off to Victoria, the world would not necessarily come to an end forthwith, and we, the taxpayers, should somehow get along without them. Apologising for the length of this—l am, &c., F.C. ° July 3, 1888.