THE SALARY CUT.

Wairarapa Age, 20 January 1922, Page 5

THE SALARY CUT.

MR. MASSEY’S STATEMENT. GOVERNOR’S offeb. (“The Age” Special.) Parliament Buildings, Jan. 19.— The second reading of the Retrenchment Bill was moved in the House to-night by the Prime Minister, who amplified the details given upon its introduction. He showed that the salary retrenchments meant a saving of £4,500,000, and there were other economies not affecting the staffs. The Government hoped to save a further £1,500,000 under the latter heading. Criticism had been directed, he said, at the large salaries having a smaller percentage of reduction than those of the rank and file, but it must be remembered that the high-salaried officers got no cost-of-living bonus and they paid income tax. However, they were asked to share in the sacrifice, but if the Government took the whole of the salaries of those earning £lOOO or over it would only produce £55,000. The Governor-General, who had noticed that he was exempted as being under contract, had intimated that he would refund £5OO of his salary, which was a very generous act. (Hear, hear). Some -of the Judges had intimated they were willing to accept a reduction.

Mr Wilford strongly criticised the Government’s uncertain basis of retrenchment It had taken only food prices in its cost-of-living calculations, while, it had ignored the universal principle that sacrifice should be in proportion of ability to bear the burden. He urged that the reductions be not made unless the cost of living had declined, as was agreed between the public servants and the Gofernment when the bonuses were granted. The Hon. E. P. Lee declared that if the proposals were condemned, the critics should suggest an alternative to secure large savings, which were admittedly necessary. Mr H. E. Holland stated that salary reductions were necessary. If he was challenged to show how £4,500,000 could be secured, the Labour Party would find it in a scientific way by steeply-graded taxation, which would reach everybody. The Labour Party would fight the Bill to a finish.

PUBLIC SERVICE PROTEST. DEPUTATIONS TO MR MASSEY. The Prime Minister was busy most of the day receiving private deputations from various sections of the Public Service, Including the railways, which discussed details and made a general representation that the Bill should not go through all its stages until the State employees have had an opportunity of placing evidence before a Select Committee. Mr Massey is reported to be averse to any committee proceedings, preferring to hear the representations himself and allow Cabinet to take the responsibility of handling the whole matter. With this object, he agreed not to go beyond the second reading on Thursday evening, and promised to receive further Public Service deputations next day. He indicated to the House that some anomalies had been demonstrated to him, which the Government would endeavour to right. P. & T. OFFICERS’ PROTESTS. Auckland, Jan. 19.—A meeting of the Auckland section of the Post and TelegrapfrOfficers’ Association, 300 at-

tending, voiced a strong protest against the reduction of salaries, and carried resolutions protesting against the drafitic character of the cut, which

“involves a flagrant breach of faith by the Government.” Also against the unjust rate of reduction. Another resolution claims special consideration because retrenchment and economy have imposed special hardships upon P. and T. officers to date. They further resolved to strongly support any action the Dominion executive may take.—(P.A.) Dunedin, Jan. 19.—The following resolutions were passed at a largelyattended meeting of the local branch of the P. and T. Officers* Association: —(1) That this branch emphatically protests against the proposed reduction of salaries, varying from 61 per cent, in the caise of high-salaried officers to 20 per cent, in the case of lower-paid officers, and in view of the fact that the Government is treating its agreement with the Association as “a scrap of paper,” and pledges itself to give every support to the executive in its endeavours to obtain a square deal; (2) following on Mr Massey’s own statement as to the unreliability of the Government Statistician’s figures relative to the cost of living, this section urges the executive to absolutely refuse to accept i these figures as :i basis of adjudicating the reduction in wages; (3) That as Mr Massey has seen fit to quote the “understanding” arrived at with several bodies of the Public Service, which stipulated that a- reduction would take place when the cost of living fell 10 per cent., attention be drawn to the other side of the “under landing,” which stipulated that a corresponding increase of wages would take plac§ if the cost of living rose 10 per cent. —(P.A.)