OTHER PAPERS’ OPINIONS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 312, 31 October 1929, Page 4

OTHER PAPERS’ OPINIONS.

PUBLIC SERVICE PAY. Restoration of the salary cuts to the Public Service at the present time would cost £1,000,000 per annum. The House of Representatives is now occupied with a 11 stonewall ” in resistance of increased taxation

for a much smaller sum. Opponents of that increase have demanded, as an alternative, greater economy in administration. Bearing these facts in mind, it must be admitted that this is not an opportune time to consider an addition of a million to the public expenditure. Other cogent arguments are submitted by the Special Committee which has reported on the question in support of its conclusion that a general attempt to restore the reductions or to increase generally the salary scales is not warranted, practicable, or capable of equitable adjustment. It should not be necessary to stress the fact that owing to the lapse of time and the alterations made in the interim, simple restoration of the salaries to the former scales would produce a heavy crop of anomalies. This is apparently admitted by the Service organisations whose request has been, not that there should be simple restoration, but that there should be an equivalent general increase.

The case for a general increase must rest upon a plea that the Public Services as a whole are underpaid. We do not think that this can be sustained. The Committee claims that “ the present maximum salaries for the lower grades of the services are largely in accord with the rates of remuneration generally paid in outside employment (as far as they can be reasonably compared).” Until evidence in disproof of

I this statement is produced, it must be accepted as a reason against a general increase. The State should maintain just and reasonable conditions for its employees; but it is not the duty of the State to set false standards which cannot be maintain- \ ed for the workers in private employment. The State has also a duty to those who provide its revenue. It must hold the balance fairly between the taxpayer and the public servant. Against this argument it would appear that one section of the service

—the Post and Telegraph—would advance the claim that the Department is doing well and can afford to pay more. But this will not hold if it is admitted that a reasonable level shall be kept throughout the service. The value of the services rendered must govern the emolument Otherwise there would be no standard by which to fix the remuneration in non-profit-making departments. Also it would be quite fair to claim that railway servants —engaged in an enterprise which does ■ not pay.—should submit to further

reductions. The mere fact that a profit is made by a service which has a monopoly does not prove the case for increased pay. It is equally strong as an argument for reduced charges. As we said previously, the Government’s duty is to stride a fair balance.—Wellington Evening Post.