The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1917. CIVIL SERVANTS' WAR BONUS.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 August 1917, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 1917. CIVIL SERVANTS' WAR BONUS.

Criticism of the National Government is increasing as the se.-ion advances, and ! last week it may be said to have reached its height, and it wa.-., at times, drastic to a prutiounced' degree. Some of the attacks were more or less of a .party nature, but many were the re-echos of public opinion, friends and opponents alike becoming candid critics. One subject that was debated with thoroughness was the payment of a war bonus to civil servants. This increase was sanctioned for the express purpose of enabling civil servants to meet the increased cost of living and was in the main confined to men receiving not more than £315 a year. No discrimination was made except that a married man received a bonus of £ls and a single man £l3, private means -being, apparently, not taken into account. The absurdity of differentiating between tho married and single men .by the sum of £2 was about as Gilbertian a comedy as can be found, emphasised by tho payment not being made to married men according to the number of their children, but they simply received the extra £2. because they were married. They might have no children at all or they might have any number and yet all the extra allowance they received beyond that of their bachelor confreres was tho munificent sum of nine pence half-penny per week. The brilliant ministerial brain by which this differential payment was evolved must have been in a merry mood when the joke was perpetrated, especially as this outbreak of liberality was intended to meet the great rite in the cost of living. Sir John Findlay was quite right in his contention that a married man with four or five children should reecive'more consideration than a man with one child, and how the Government can reconcile the allotment of the bonus with the insistent plea for keeping the cradle full is beyond conception. Another aspect of the case- is that the bonus is not paid to casuals, and it is difficult to imagine why they were debarred therefrom. There was much force in Mr. Anderson's contention that the juniors were for more in need of a bonus than the men -in receipt of £3OO. a year, and it would seem that if there is only £400,000 to, be doled out to mitigate the .stress of heavy prices for necessities of life then it 5 S those who have the smallest incomes who are in most need of the bonus, especially where there are families. The unmarried men should certainly not participate. Considering the immediate object of the increment it is ; obvious that the only rational system of distribution w«a.s on a basjs of domestic responsibilities. The most remarkable feature of tho debate was, however, the contribution of l]„. Minister (Hon, «• VV. Russell) who completely justified the criticism which has become- so general as to the inability of the Government to meet the war situation. He practically confess*,! t , mt thli CQmbjl)p(] wisdom of tho AKnistry, even with the assistance of the highly paid departmental heads, liad -been unable to frame a workable differentiation scheme in the men witb«.M •*.!

Ten and men without children, and he Sn■TJted the co-operation of members of Parliament in this task which lie admitted was necessary. It is hardly likely that the oiler will he rushed, for members of the House would scarcely like to lay themselves open to the same treat-, ment as that meted out to the Efficiency Board members. Probably Mr. Russell did not realise how completely he was exposing the incapacity of himself and his colleague's, but the. country will certainly do so. There is possibly even a greater injustice being perpetrated in connection with the, special increases which have been given to the highly paid men in the Government employ under the plausible plea of payment for special services, and it is this fact which has caused considerable heart burning. A list of these gratuities would form interesting reading and not a little •astonishment, for Uie reason that the Government has been preaching in season and out of season the need for individual sacrifice, but practising the exact opposite. It may reasonably bo assumed that every man in the Government service was prepared to do extra work as his contribution to the pressing need of the times, but when men aro compensated financially for such sacrifices it undermines the whole ideal of nation.H service in war time, the Premier attempted to jusliiy file special bonus paid to some officials last year, mi(ler tllc plea t)lnt men who -built up new industries were entitled to special consideration, and he j pathetically alluded to one officer who broke down and had to be sent away on a holiday— and that man was receiving £IOOO a year—but the argument he used as to this officer being the hest alul only man available for the purpose wa.i Promptly quashed by the query of a member as to what would have happen•d if the officer had died. Cases such as those can never be justified in a time of sacrifice when every true and loyal patriot should give of his best. It may suit -Ministers to lean on official props, hut it is neither good business nor good statesmanship, and, as events have prov- <'<!. 't is a costly and irritating proceeding. In working out the scheme of pen-'-i'>«s for wounded soldiers' dependents tlm Government could and did discriminate, and any reasonably intelligent

Person, t ,veu though not qualified for the <>»«'« of a public service commissioner, could have ir.'mcd an equitable .-.-heme of war -1-onuses for civil servants, but ''""' u ° ll1 ' 1 llilv « been no provision for tho '""'"?' I*W'men. It is humiliating ln fi,ul tllat s° »>>>iy important matters have been so badly ) mn , M> but it is I'itile on the part of Ministers to attempt to justify the errors. Nothing but the. fear of a general election can ac«ount for tho complacent way in which ."embers tolerate evil, which thev ver>»H.v condemn. Tlie only question is- ■™ long will the patience of the people hold out?