PUBLIC SERVICE INGRATITUDE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18822, 10 March 1931, Page 8

PUBLIC SERVICE INGRATITUDE.

In the kindliest spirit we would suggest to the spokesmen for the civil service and all who applauded their utterances, that if they hope to retain the good wishes of the community they will turn their attention to the stern realities of the economic situation confronting the Dominion, and studiously avoid running the risk of being charged with gross and unforgivable ingratitude. It is generally admitted that there are always two sides to every question," and it ought not to be beyond the capacity of an enlightened public service to present their case with dignity and accuracy. Altogether, too much was made by an anonymous chairman, who put forward the case for the civil servants at the general meeting of public servants on Saturday night of the concessions enjoyed by other sections of the community, particular attention being paid to the farmer. There was too little recognition, too, of the privileges enjoyed by the service. Moreover, the references to the civil service superannuation schemes were both ungenerous and misleading. Said the chairman: "We have one case where a man has paid into the superannuation fund for 30 years and when eventually he goes on superannuation in three years time, his superannuation will be so small that he will still be eligible for the old age pension.” AVe say at once that this is a grossly" unfair statement, and unworthy of the spokesman of an important section of the civil service. In the most grudging fashion the anonymous chairman admitted that “the Government subsidies superannuation to the extent of £BO,OOO per _ annum,” and a weird and irrelevant deduction was indulged in to bolster up an attempt to belittle what is really a big dip into the pockets of the ordinary taxpayer in- the exclusive interests of the civil service. The display of ingratitude would be sufficient to estrange a large measure of public sympathy if that were the whole offence, but the shameful misrepresentation of obvious facts indulged in by the chairman who made the statements behind the shelter of anonymity, should be repudiated without delay by the civil service association. Everyone who takes the trouble to look up the readily accessible statistics will find that the Government subsidy to the public service superannuation fund last year amounted not to £86,000 as stated by the chairman, but £200,844, which, although it may appear a small and significant coptribiv tion in the eyes of the civil service, still the taxpayers of the community will be interested to know that in these hard times, the levy they paid almost equalled the aggregate contributions of members themselves, which totalled £263,424. In addition to this handsome contribution last year, a further draw on the Consolidated Fund (in other words a big dip into the taxpayer’s pocket) was made to provide subsidies for the superannuation of teachers amounting in this case to £71,831, while the _ ordinary taxpayer also provided last year £182,112 to assist the Government railways superannuation fund. Thus in the last two years the ordinary taxpayer provided the following subsidies for the various civil service superannuation funds:

State Subsidies. 1929. 1930. £ £ Public Service .. •• 100,007 200,844 Teachers 72,000 71,8^1 Railway servants .. 182,337 182,112 £354,344 £454,787 In the judgment of the anonymous chairman of the representative gathering of •public servants, this handsome contribution “does not constitute a drain on the Consolidated Fund,” but we rather fancy that the civil service superannuation funds would very soon lapse into a very parlous condition, if the ordinary taxpayer, who seems to be suspected by the civil service of shirking the job of carrying his full share of the load, demanded immediate relief from such burdensome taxation. The obvious reply, of course, to many of the rather ill-considered statements that have been made, is to invite the spokesmen of the civil service to explain (if they desire equality of treatment in every direction), why the ordinary taxpayer who was greviously overtaxed last year, should have been called upon to provide nearly half a million last year to maintain the financial stability of the state service superannuation funds, more particularly in the light of the spoken ingratitude of the very people who personally benefit under the generous superannuation provisions made by the State in the interests of its servants.