THE PUBLIC SERVICE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21579, 26 February 1932, Page 8

THE PUBLIC SERVICE

PRIME MINISTER’S DECLARATION WAGE CUTS OR DISMISSALS UNPLEASANT ALTERNATIVES (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, February 25. “ Which do you prefer—further wage cuts or wholesale dismissals? ” asked the Prime Minister (Mr G. W. Forbes) today of a large deputation claiming to represent 50,000 civil servants which waited on him with carefully prepared alternatives to further reductions in salaries. “We have to reduce costs,” Mr Forbes added, “ and the only way we can do that is either by reducing wages or reducing staffs. The alternative is bankruptcy.” This unpleasant truth followed an exhaustive outline of the civil service organisations’ proposals, details of which were published yesterday. The organisations represented at the deputation were the New Zealand Educational Institute, the Post and Telegraph Association, the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Guild, the Railway Officers Institute, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, the Engine-drivers” Firemen’s. and Cleaners’ Association, ana the New Zealand Railway Tradesmens Association. Mr A. Burgess, chairman of the combined organisations, Mr J. H. MTvenzie, of the Post and Telegraph Association, Mr E. H. R. Green, of toe Post and Telegraph Officers’ Guild, and Mr L. MTlvride, of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, all of whom spoke, said they were seeking a constructive alternative to wage reductions. Mr Forbes, in reply, assured the deputation that wage reducing was a most unpleasant task. There were some people who appeared to think that the Government liked reducing wages, but he had found no pleasure in what had been done during the last 12 months. He recognised the hardship and distress that had been caused and the difficult financial position in which many civil servants were placed. He was not taking any exception whatever to the representations which were being made to him, as he realised thjit the organisations represented had a duty to their members, The Government had to consider, however, how it was going to get through the present difficulties without involving further disaster. He remembered deputations which had waited upon him previously in regard to the 10 per cent. cut. “ I am bound to say,” Mr Forbes continued, “that the attitude of the civil servants in the past has not been very helpful. The reductions have been Very strongly resisted. Well, there will have to be further reductions in Goyernment expenditure, otherwise we are facing bankruptcy. No Government is going to allow the country to become bankrupt or is going to bring further disaster upon the civil servants and every section of the community. If we did that you would be the first to come to us in indignation. The whole position is this: What policy do you stand for—wage reduction or wholesale dismissals? That is the alternative we have before us. The public service is no different from private firms which have had to make dismissals. Today our public service is over-staffed, and we are placed in the same position as private firms.” Mr Forbes went on to say that he had noticed that the organisations proposed inflation, but experience went to show that there never had been inflation without consequent deflation. They were suggesting the issue of Treasury notes in accordance with the extent of the deficit, but the deficit was not a fixed amount. The deficit could be a tremendously large sum of mnoey. They were trying to keep the deficit down to the smallest amount. “ The present rate of expenditure has to be cut down,” declared Mr Forbes. “The Government went to the country with definite proposals for further economy. It told the people that if it were necessary that wage reductions should be made for the sake of the country’s stability they would be made. There was no beating about the bush at ail. I want to see the civil servants treated as liberally as possible, but I am not going to be placed in_ the position of saying we will do something we cannot possibly carry out.” ~ . . • The Prime Minister said the whole question had been placed before the Economy Commission, and they would have the commission's report before long. It had been charged against the Government that it was not possible tor the Government to make the _ necessary economies in the public service because it had been responsible for building it up, but an independent tribunal had now been set up to decide whether the public service was greater than the .country could afford. The tribunal consisted of outside business men. The representations of the various organisations had been placed before the commission, and would be considered. , Personally, Mr Forbes added, he vaa very sorry to have been placed in tti position •in which he was placed as a result of the reductions which it had been necessary to make. “However, he was carrying out a task which he considered to be in the best interests of , £ OU p It was not a question of what the Government would like to do, but what the state of the finances allowed.