Post Office Charges Meet Criticism

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 186, 27 October 1927, Page 14

Post Office Charges Meet Criticism

BILL BEFORE HOUSE WAS A PROMISE BROKEN? (THE SUN'S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Everything in the Legislative Garden is not lovely over the Post and Telegraph Amendment Bill, which was discussed on the second reading stage this afternoon, and which after being roundly criticised was read a second time and referred to the Public Accounts Committee. The Prim© Minister was accused of breaking a promise made in 1921 to the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association, while the Postmaster-General was figuratively hauled over the coals for his colourless explanation of the provisions of the measure. The clause providing for the removal of the accounts from the jurisdiction of the ‘Treasury provoked much discussion. The Postmaster-General, the Hon. W. Nosworthy. explained that the commercialisation of the Government departments had made it necessary to change the system of conducting the finance of the Post and Telegraph Department, which it had been decided to separate from the accounts of the Treasury- This action had been taken after consultation with the Minister of Finance and the officers of the Treasury, and was calculated to meet altered conditions. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. If. E. Holland, took strong exception to the clause making provision for the appointment by the Governor-General of certain officers of the department, in addition to those specified by the Post and Telegraph Department Act, 1918, to positions to which were attached salaries in excess of £765 a year. It was a most serious alteration for the department, said Mr. Holland, and he thought it constituted a breach of the agreement with the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association, which the Prime Minister had promised in 1921, that this sort of thing would not he done until after the association had been consulted. Promotions were made by the Promotions Board, on which the association had representation, and appointments were subject to apepal, but under this clause the Minister was going to take the power to make the appointments. “It opens the way for making political appointments,” said Mr. Holland. TREASURY SECESSIONS Sir Joseph Ward, member for Invercargill, delivered a healthy criticism of the Bill generally. He classed it as the most revolutionary measure in connection with departmental administration that had been introduced into the House since he had been there. His chief grievance was the separation of the accounts of the P. and T. Department from those of the Treasury. The Railways Department had been taken from beneath the umbrella of the Treasury; now the Post and Telegraph was being seceded; he wondered which department would come next. He suggested that the Bill should be considered by the Public Accounts Committee. The preparation of the commercial balance sheet of these departments would become so involved that an accountant would have to accompany the linesmen on the round to see that an extra £5 would be judiciously expended. He claimed that a grave departure was being made from the established lines of departmental administration that had been laid down many years ago. Mr. Coates defended the policy which bad inspired the Bill, and said that the Post and Telegraph officers should have come to the Minister. Mr. Holland; How did they know the Bill was coming down? Mr. Coates: They must have known it was on the way. Mr. Holland: I did not know till last aight. Mr. Coates: It has been discussed among officers of the department. The only explanation he could offer why they were not consulted was that the department had overlooked the letter quoted by Mr. Holland. So far as he personally • was concerned, he had nothing to do but co-ordinate the three departments—Public Service, Railways and Post Office. Proposals on this question would be made later on. It gave greater security to the staff and opportunities to appeal against promotion. This Bill executed the promises made four or five years ago, when it was decided to adjust the financial arrangements by keeping accounts on a commercial basis. He had not heard of any objection from the Railway Department through the transfer to a separate fund. RAPIDLY GROWING ,r Wo are inclined to forget that this department is growing at a rate that few people recognise,” he continued. “The actual amount of the money handled last year amounted to between £120,000,000 and £200,000,000. Throughout this system, of which the telephone branch was a remarkably fast-expanding unit, there was a complete system of renewal payments, and these would be better operated under the new organisation. This Bill was carrying out the policy of the late Prime Minister, and he could see no objection to it. Mr. J.M. Savage, Auckland West, condemned the Bill as playing into the hands of the associated banks, because of the clause which empowered the Minister of Finance to alter the rate of interest payable on money in savings banks. Mr. Stewart: It has the opposite effect. It enabled me to compete with them. Mr. Savage: Who is the power behind this Bill? Is it the Associated Banks? If this is going to force the investors into the hands of the private institutions, I question the legislation. Mr. G. W. Forbes, Leader of the Nationalists, wished to have an assur-

ance that fair play was given to officers of the department, and agreed that the postponement of the Bill, for mature consideration, was desirable. The Minister of Finance, the Hon. WDownie Stewart, claimed that if he were not empowered with a flexible rate of interest on savings bank deposits, he would be working with his hands tied. He had to take steps to see that the Post Office was not prejudiced by the operations of private Mr. Savage: This gives you power to lower the rate. Mr. Stewart: The primary object was to give greater flexibility. Private savings banks have been putting up their rates on deposits, and it is obvious that their deposits are mounting rapidly as a result. Our object is not to drive money into private banks, because we are trying to draw money to the Post Office. It is only a short time since we took power to issue Post Office certificates to draw money back into the Post Office, which was going away more quickly than we wanted. These certificates are very popular and are bringing into the Post Office money that otherwise would go elsewhere. Mr. Nos worthy, in his reply, promised to investigate Mr. Coates’s letter to the Post and Telegraph Association. So far as radio licences were concerned, the Government wished to protect the public who paid licence fees, and expected service. The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Public Accounts Committee.