N.S.W. POLITICS

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18406, 13 August 1931, Page 3

N.S.W. POLITICS

PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES. MR BOYCE ATTACKS BILL. SYDNEY, August 4. Crowded galleries testified to the tense public Interest in the Public Service Salaries Bill, the debate on the second reading of which was resumed In the. Legislative Council this afternoon. The intention to amend the Public Service Salaries Bill was made clear by the Opposition leader in the Legislative Council (Mr Boyce), when he opened his speech on the second reading this afternoon. “This measure," Said Mr Boyce, “furnishes another example of the usefulness of the second Chamber. "There are two angles from which the bill may be approached. "The first Is the angle of political expendiency. Many of those who are opposed to the present Government say, ‘Let the Government have the bill. They don’t want you to pass it. They want you to reject it. Don't play Mr Lang's game for him and reject the bill. Pass it.’

“But there is another angle of approach, and that is the angle of justice. In the Legislative Council the claims of justice hold a complete kingdom, and, considered from that angle, one can come to no other conclusion but that this bill works much injustice upon the body of the Civil Servants at large. Another Angle. “Although we expect Civil Servants to make sacrifices, just as every other person is doing, and has to do, tt shocks one's sense of what Is fair and right, that such extravagances of legislation as this should be attempted. “This bill came to us on Friday, having been passed in the early hours of that morning by the Assembly. The Intervening time has been a Saturday, a Sunday, and a bank holiday, giving little opportunity for examining the figures put forward by the Minister. In the short time at our disposal, I, and others, have done our best to arrive at such a solution of the problem as will do justice to the Public Servants, who look to us for Justice, and I shall propose an amendment to that end. Premiers' Plan. “The reason for the bill is found in the plan adopted at the Premiers’ Conference, and I can assure the Minister, as I have done before, that, so far as I am concerned, and I am sure the majority of the members of the House are of the same opinion, the Legislative Council will do nothing to place any obstacle in the way of the due fulfilment of that plan, but on the contrary will do their best to assist it." Mr Boyce pointed out that the Premiers’ Conference plan w r as for a reduction of 20 per cent, on Government expenses, including all wages, salaries and pensions, such reductions to be equitably effected." In the conclusion of the conference it was pointed out that the 20 per cent reduction would make the position of the Government employee more secure. What Mandate? Mr Lang had told the Melbourne Conference that he proposed "further" to reduce salaries by £1,300.000, Mr Boyce went on. “Further" must mean in addition to the 8 1-3 per cent already in existence. The bill had been brought on at a moment’s notice—no appeal to the patriotism of the Public Servants — hurried through the Legislative Assembly, “but the Legislative Council, thank goodness, could give It consideration." "What mandate has Mr Lang got to reduce salaries to £5OO a year?" he asked. Outrageous. The bill contained the most outrageous anomalies, continued Mr Boyce, judges being reduced to the same scale as shorthand reporters, and the Commissioner of Police to the scale of a minor country official. Then there was the pension anomaly. Mr Justice Harvey would be reduced. under the bill, from £2600 a year, to £5OO a year, but he was entitled to a pension, which was not to be cut. and he could retire, and get £l3OO as pension, or continue to work, and get £5OO. The thing was ridiculous. The Chief Justice and Mr Justice Ferguson wv're in the same position. “I don’t know." said Mr Boyce, "whether this bill Is an attempt to get these men to retire, and leave their places to he filled by nominees. "I don’t know and I hope not." Criticising the proposal to restore 8 1-3 per cent cut, and make no further reduction of salaries under | £260, Mr Boyce said that a single •man on £5 a week was better off than a married man on £3OO. This provision might bo designed to catch the vote of young people in the Public Service, but it was not just.