The Press Friday, April 8, 1921. The Public Service.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17114, 8 April 1921, Page 6

The Press Friday, April 8, 1921. The Public Service.

: In its current (March) issue, the "Public Service Journal" takes note of the growing feeling that some substantial saving of expenditure can be made in respect of the public Departments. It declares that "the public "servant shares almost last of all in "national prosperity," but "is called "to the guillotine of economy by popu- '' "lar clamour at the first pinch of '' national depression." This, of course, is not correct. Whil6 whole sections * of the public have only found life harder during the past few years 4 the civil servants have been safeguarded by Parliament, through ,the payment of bonuses, against the inconvenience caused tojthe average citizen by the rise in prices. Nobody has been better . looked after. So far, also, while the

general public is endeavouring to adjust itself to the lean times, the publb service goes on its way as usual. Tiie conductors, of the -''Public Service " Journal" know that this is so, but they no doubt conceive that their duty is to avert by any means available the danger of retrenchment. Following the quoted plea of unrewarded martyrdom comes the appeal to the public's selfinterest. "The greatest saving is possible," the "Journal'' says, "only if "the public is prepared to do without " services which it has become accus- " tomed to receive." These services, the "Journal" very truly adds, "have "been granted as the result of an " agitation by members of Parliament, "public bodies, or interested sections "of the community." This does not help the argument, as need hardly be pointed out; but it is a fact worth remembering. Some of the sharpest critics of the Government are people who actively or passively assumed responsibility for these unwise extensions of public services; but the blame rests pretty generally upon everybody. Aa for the "Journal's" plea, however, that savings can be effected only at the cost of services, it is not, even if one could allow it some basis in fact, a plea that will carry much weight with the taxpayer. People are "doing without'' in their homes, and they can without any great hardship do without some of the public "services" that cost so dear. Still, the ''Journal" realises that something must be done, and it accordingly offers as a compromise "the re"tirement of public servants at the "age of sixty or over, provided that "they have forty years' service." As a recommendation of this suggestion, which might result in the saving of only a few thousands a year, we are presented with the fact that it has been advocated for some time, and is "no "mere afterthought to meet the recent " cry for retrenchment." We are well aware of that; we remember that during the war the "Journal" was indignant at the Government's proposal to suspend the ordinary rule relating to retirement at 65. It was not a concern for the public purse that actuated the Public Service Association then, and it can hardly be a concern for the public pairse or the public interest that directs the renewal of its old suggestion to-day. The public service is,, we believe, too large, and it might well' be reduced in 'size, aa well as in costliness. In this same issua of the "Journal'' there is a "comprehen"sive table 1 ' showing the numbers and average salaries of the permanent Btaffs in the various Departments under the control of the Publio Service Commissioner, from the years 1913 to 1920. In 1913 these publio servants numbered 4651, with salaries totalling £874,411, an average of £IBB. Under the National Government the figures grew very rapidly, until we find in 1918-19 that there were 6292 public servants in,these Departments, drawing salaries totalling £1,231;421,. and averaging £195. The 1920-1921 figures are: Number -of permanent "'employees, 6752; total salaries, £1,900,722; average salary, £2Bl. These statistics, we should add, do not include the Railway Department or the Postal Department. Who can'believe thaft the work of the Public Trust which employed 180 people in 1913, grew to dimensions requiring a staff of 565 today, or that the Mental Hospitals Department really requires 608 people today when it got along with 413 in 1913, or that the Audit Office staff had to be increased by nearly 100 per cent. (from 54 to 102), or that the Internal Affairs" Department staff had to oe nearly trebled (from 199 to 591)? Merely getting rid of a few veterans will avail nothing. ,'.'",