CIVIL SERVANTS

Southland Times, Issue 20903, 12 October 1929, Page 8

CIVIL SERVANTS

SALARY CUTS LENGTHY DEBATE IN THE HOUSE LABOUR RECORDS PROTEST (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, October 11. The restoration of the 1922 salary cuts ,o civil servants was the subject of an amendment moved by Mr H. E. Holland (Labour) in the House of Representatives to-day when the Post Office Account in the Estimates was being discussed in Committee. .... The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said that as regards the salaries of Post and Telegraph employees, these employees had approached the Government last year before the election and had .asked that the salaries cut should be restored. The Government had replied that such restoration was technically impossible owing to the promotions and transfers that had been made. As far as the future was concerned, the Government had said that it was ready to undertake reclassification. The Hon. T. M. Wilford: When was that? Mr Coates: About November, I think, but I am speaking from memory. Members had only to look at the Estimates, Mr Coates continued, to see that a large number of men had been accumulating at the head of the grades. There were 1,972 men at top of Class 7. The policy laid down for promotion was rightly based on merit, but the fact still remained that the Postmaster-General and the Department were faced with a mass of men at the top of the grades and how to overcome that was a problem for them. He suggested that the position could be relieved if those men who had qualified as accountants, etc., were given an opportunity of promotion to other departments. ‘‘Had a bad Spin.” Mr 11. E. Holland (Labour) said that there was great dissatisfaction in the service in respect to the position of employees at the present time. They had certainly had a bad spin under the Reform Government and did not get anything like what they deserved. They had suffered severely in several ways. No Department was of greater importance to the country than the Post and Telegraph Department and the Postmaster-General had reason to be proud of the record of the employees for a very small number of offences were committed by members of the service. He thought that it was time that the servants of the Department had something done regarding their salaries and it was useless for the Government to plead that there was a shortage of money. There was no shortage of money in the country and he believed that the Government would have a substantial surplus at the end of the year. In any case, there was a surplus in the Department in question. He moved an amendment that the vote should be reduced by £2 as an indication that the House considered that the vote should be increased to. enable the salaries ruling in 1919 to be restored. Mr A. M. Samuel said that there were far too many men in the Post and Telegraph Department receiving wages upon which it was impossible for a married man to live. One peculiarity about the Department was that it was watertight for a large number of'men could rise to £240 per annum, but there they had to remain. Two hundred and forty pounds was not much to live on if a man had a wife and family to keep and those men had to spend ten years reaching that position. It appeared peculiar to him that while the Department made a profit of £500,000 last year, all except £40,000 was written off for depreciation. There had been no need for that, for some of the money had been invested to meet depreciation when it. should have been regarded as profit. He asked if the Government wfis going to carry out the reclassification allowed by legislation. “A Policy Matter.” “The question of restoration of cuts,” said the Postmaster-General, ‘‘is a policy matter and as I am not Prime Minister nor Minister of Finance, it would not be right for me to make a statement on the subject. I understand the Prime Minister has already stated that he is to make a statement on the restoration of the cuts and that he will then allow a discussion on it.

Mr R. Semple: Your party is pledged to it.”

The Hon. J. B. Donald: The statement will bo made next week if the Prime Minister is in his place. It should have been made this week.

Mr Coates: It is a question of reclassification more particularly. “I may say,” said Mr Donald, “that that is involved. The reclassification is almost completed and no doubt the Prime Minister will refer to that as well. In regard to the officers of the Department, I am proud of the men who are working under me. New Zealand has reason to be proud of the men who carry out the work of the Department. I can’t agree with the statement that there is grave dissatisfaction in the Department. -I quite realize that there is, a certain amount of dissatisfaction on account of salaries, but it is not grave.” Mr W. E. Barnard: It is grave enough. Mr Donald: The' men realize that the cuts can’t be restored straight away. Mr W. E. Parry: I thought you said you could not make that statement. The Minister said it had been suggested that the profits shown by the Department (£40,000) were not true profits and that actually a considerably higher profit had been made. That was not correct because a definite amount of depreciation had to be set aside to cover the replacement, of assets. That amounted to about £480,000 and it was. none .too much for the assets held by the Department. Mr Samuel: It is too much. The Minister said that the question of restoring the salary cuts needed to be considered apart altogether from the depreciation fund. Minister on Defence. After several members had spoken, the Hon. T. M. Wilford said that he was sorry it had been necessary for the Leader of the Labour Party to move a reduction of the item, because after all, the PostmasterGeneral was not in a position to make such a statement as would satisfy Mr Holland. Labour members: He ought to be. Mr Wilford said he knew that the amendment was only a recommendation, but members must know that the Government could not accept it. Every member of the United Party would make the same recommendations as members of the Labour Party. He suggested that the object aimed at in moving the amendment could be achieved by a discussion and without testing the matter by a vote. When a Government realised that the House believed that certain, procedure should be taken, only a Government that took no notice of the House and flaunted its feelings would disregard it. The position was understood, but the Postmaster-General was neither Minister of Finance nor Prime Minister and on a policy question dealing with finance, he had no more; right to make a statement than the speaker had. Mr Semple: It is time your Cabinet made a pronouncement. Mr Wilford: That is so, blit if the Prime Minister had not been unwell, the honourable member would not have had occasion to make that interjection. Mr J. A. Nash: Does that mean that we are likely to hear of increases for the Post Office officials?' Mr Wilford: The reason for that question is apparent to me. I have been used to putting questions all my life. (Laughter.) Mr Nash: Why get annoyed? “J am not annoyed,” replied .Mr Wilford.

“The answer is that only the Minister of Finance, who is also Prime Minister, can reply on behalf of his party to a question involving public expenditure; but what is the use of baiting the Postmaster-General now when he cannot answer ? What was the use of holding up the money because the Prime Minister could not make a statement? . Mr Nash: In the absence of the Prime Minister, can you speak for the rest of Cabinet ? Mr Wilford: Cabinet supports the Prime Minister. There are no resolutions moved in Cabinet and there are no divisions. We arrive at a decision and the Prime Minister gives that decision. He must give it here, we can’t. You can carry an amendment, but we cannot do it. We will have to wait until the Prime Minister makes a statement and I can assure the House that when he comes here he will make the statement he has promised the whole of the civil service of New Zealand and he will allow a discussion on it. There is nothing to be gained' by placing Labour members and others who supported the Government in an awkward position. ( Mr Nash: But the Labour Party wont put you out. Message from Sir Joseph Ward. The debate was continued bj- several members and when the House resumed at 2.30, the Hon. T. M. Wilford stated: “During the interval I took the opportunity of discussing what had been going on in the House with the Prime Minister, and informed him of the position of things up to 1 o’clock. He asked me to deliver this message, that he intended as soon as possible after his return to the House of Representatives to make a full and complete statement in regard to the position of civil servants affected by the “cut.” Then an opportunity of discussing the matter would be given to all hon. members.” Mr Nash said that the Prime Minister had promised the House an explanation and the opportunity to debate it and the House should be satisfied to receive that. The Minister had said that the United Party was in accord as regards the salary cuts and as the House was to have an opportunity to discuss the matter, it was only fair that it should be left over. Mr Holland said that in view of the statement from the Prime Minister he thought that it would meet the wishes of the House if he was allowed to ask permission to withdraw his amendment. —■ (Hear, hear.) Mr Samuel said that he wanted to draw the attention of members to the attitude of the Labour Party regarding the amendment. Mr M. J. Savage: Give attention to your own party and leave the Labour Party alone. —(Laughter.) It was his intention, said Mr Samuel, to support the amendment, but he had been surprised to hear the leader of the Labour Party move it. He had thought at the tinier and he still thought, that the amendment was only blank ammunition. The Hon. Sir A! T. Ngata: You are rather ungrateful. The Labour Party had had plenty of opportunities to move amendments during the session, said Mr Samuel. They could have voted for free school book education for the blind. Mr Holland: What has that got to do with the Estimates ? The chairman: The hon. gentleman cannot discuss free books here. Reform's Attitude. Mr J. McCombs said that the attitude of the Labour Party had been referred to and he was going to refer to the attitude of the Reform Party. They had seen members of that party almost in tears about the condition of the Post and Telegraph employees, but what was the attitude of the Reform Party in 1922 he asked. Labour had made repeated efforts to prevent the cuts when there was more money in the country than at present, for Mr Massey had just placed a statement before the House showing a record surplus of £6,132,000. Reform members had objected to the word robbery, but they had confiscated the wages of civil servants to hand them over to the wealthy sheep farmers of the country. He then read the names of those who had voted for the cut on wages under £2lO and said that he thought that those members would keep quiet on the matter if only out of common decency. The Labour Party had a right to attack any Government on a reduction of wages to any civil servants. Hitting Back. Mr. Coates said that the hon. member had very cleverly misrepresented the position. Mr. D. Jones: He is a past master. Mr. Coates: I only know one better. All the salaries were cut, even those of members of Parliament. The Rev. C. J. Carr: Not to the same extent. Mr. Coates: The hon. gentleman was not here. Mr. Carr: I know all about it though. Mr. Coates said that all the salaries had to be cut. Mr. McCombs: It wasn’t necessary. Mr. Coates said that if the country could have gone on bearing the same rate of taxation, the Government could have gone on paying the salaries, but they had reached . the breaking point and it was absolutely necessary that everyone should assist to ; bear the burden of re-adjustment. The civil i servants did not object. t,, Mr. Barnard: They had to submit. Mr. Coates: Oh no, they accepted it with the promise that when conditions improved, the salaries would be increased again. The ! hon. gentleman who had just spoken had gone out of his way to try and blacken the ' Reform Party, but he had only quoted a little of what had happened. ‘ A member: In five minutes. ' Mr. P. Fraser: He did very well. (Laugh- : ter.) Mr. F. W. Langstone: Are you willing to ! hold a public debate on the matter? ' Mr. Coates: It has been debateel at every 5 election since 1922 and the Labour Party has been beaten on it.

Mr. Langstone: So were you. Mr. Coates: We can take a hiding and show you how to take one too.

Mr. McCombs said that the Leader of the Opposition had just told the House, and expected new members to believe, what had taken place in 1922. They had had two unfair and confiscatory pieces of legislation to consider at that time. There was no question of taxation but it became plain that the Government of the day was anxious to reduce taxation for immediately afterwards some big pastoralists were exempted from both land and income tax while public servants on the £2OO a year mark had suffered a reduction. After taking £2,000,000 from the public servants, the Government had made a reduction of £3,000,000 in taxation. The chairman called the speaker to order.

The Arbitration Court was ordered by the Government to make a reduction, said Mr McCombs. The chairman: Come back to the estimates. •

Mr McCombs: Possibly I have wandered a bit away, but I was tempted. (Laughter.)

Mr W. D. Lysnar said that he took exception to the member for Lyttelton misstating the position. He had talked about a surplus of £6,132,000, but did not mention anything about the supertax of 33 J per cent. “Are civil servants not to bear their share of the burden?” he said. “What do we find now. We have Labour members coming here and opening their big mouths—(laughter)—in support of the Party they had put in to impose 300 times as much tax.” . The chairman: Order.

. Mr Lysnar: I only use that as an illustration. (Laughter.) The Dominion is not in a position to restore the cuts. ~ A member: Reform Party members are in favour of restoration.

Mr Lysnar: That’s only agitators. (Loud laughter.) There had been no promise to restore the cuts when the civil servants were ready, said Mr Lysnar, but when the country was ready . . ' •

The chairman: You have made that sufficiently clear. Mr Lysnar: Very well, I will conclude by saying this. If one public, servant leaves his position there are 509 ready to take his place. ■** A member: What about yo'Ur job. Mr Lysnar: My job .. The chairman : Order;-order.' ‘

Mr P. Fraser said that the hon. member for Thames had said that the Leader of the Labour Party was not sincere when he moved his amendment, but the leader of the Labour Party had done the only thing that any party leader with any selfrespect would have done upon receipt of such a message from a sick Prime Minister. Nothing would be lost by the withdrawal of the amendment. “Would the member for Thames go out into the lobby, probably alone, and refuse the sick Leader of Parliament an opportunity to place his policy before the House?” he asked. Mr Samuel said that he had no intention of refusing to allow the Prime Minister to state his policy and after several other members had spoken the amendment was ■withdrawn. ■•-’.■ -A