HIGH COST OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18890, 15 October 1929, Page 9

HIGH COST OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

STRONG CRITICISM MADE AT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONFERENCE. (Special to the “ Star.”) AUCKLAND, October 15. Severe criticism regarding the increased cost of Government departments was expressed at the Associated Cham bers of Commerce conference yesterday. Mr W. J. Gilberd, of Wanganui, moved that the conference draw attention to the number of civil servants and the increased administrative costs, and urge the carrying out of drastic reductions. The Public Service Commissioner, Mr P. Verschaffelt, was present, and, at the request of the president (Mr C. P. Agar) he addressed the conference. Mr Gilberd said that in 1914 Parliament cost the country £71,422 a year; in 1928-29 it cost £153,900, an increase of about £82,000. In 1914 the Railway Department employed a staff of 14,176, and in 1928-29 18,600, an increase of over 4400. The salaries totalled £1,929,000 in 1914, and £4,173,000 in 1928-29, an increase of about £2,214,000. The staff of the Post and Telegraph Department totalled 10,013 last year, an increase of 4600 compared with 1914. During that period salaries had increased by £1,578,000 to £2,777,000. In 1928-29 the staff of the Education Department totalled 9845, an increase of 5397 on 1914, and the salaries had increased by £1,490,000 to £2,371,000. The Public Works Department employed 59,050 last year, 24,311 more than in 1914. The salaries paid last year totalled £13,843,000, an increase of £7,890,000. The total increase in civil servants during the period was 45,253 and in salaries £14,681,000. The total cost last year of salaries, excluding those connected with Parliament, was £25,984,000. “ The time has arrived when some method should be devised to bring these expenses down,” Mr Gilberd concluded.

Mr C. 11. Hewlett (Christchurch): The figures quoted are astonishing. If business firms carried such surplus staffs in proportion they would soon be bankrupt. There is a growing need of a thorough investigation. Mr Verschaffelt said the conference should appreciate the functions of the civil servants. lie was amazed at Mr Gilberd’s figures and would like to know where they were secured. There had certainly been a large increase in the cost of the public service since 1914.. However, a large proportion of that increase did not relate to civil servants employed. The cost of the general administration of the public service had decreased from £1 3s 6d per head of population in 1914 to 17s 8d per head last year. Increases in the public expenditure were to be found in the war debt charges, pensions and social services. The question was which services were to be curtailed? The present tendency was to increase the Government services. The Post and Telegraph Department had certainly expanded, but coincidental had been an enormous increase in facilities. The community wanted the services, and unless it was prepared to cease its demand there appeared little hope of an all-round reduction in cost. The salaries of the executive officers in the service were not high. The Lower Hutt Power Board gave their engineer £IOOO a year, with certain emoluments, but the Public Works Department engineer for the whole of the Wellington district received only £750. Mr A. G. Lunn: There is a strong feeling that a number of the men have not sufficient work to do. Would you say that in the whole of the Government staff ev£ty man is taking his full pull on the rope? Mr Verschaffelt: I think so. If any instances are pointed out they can be cleared up. Mr W. Machin (Christchurch) said that, according to the Premier, the cost of social services had risen from £2 16. s 6d per head in 1914 to £4 3s 5d in 1925-29, Mr A. F. Wright (Christchurch): The overhead costs of the country as a whole are out of proportion to the country’s size and wealth I do not think that we are getting Value for the money we pay. If every civil servant were in uniform we would be amazed at the number, and the good sense of the community would soon find a way to reduce it. Air V. E. Hamilton (Christchurch) said the Arms Act had cost £SO 000 to administer. Such services were not needed. After further discussion the remit was withdrawn, it being pointed out that an earlier resolution covered the question. .