RETRENCHMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 January 1922, Page 5

RETRENCHMENT.

THE PROPOSALS MODIFIED.

PERIOD OF CUT EXTENDED. CONCESSIONS TO MARRIED MEN. DEBATE AGAIN ADJOURNED. Amendments in the civil service salary “cut” proposals were announced by the Premier in the House last night. It is now proposed that the first “cut” will be made during the current quarter, the second to be delayed till the July quarter, and the third not to operate till January next. Concessions to married men with families are also proposed, while the younger members of the service wil! only be reduced to the extent of £l5 in two “cuts”. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. When the House resumed this evening it went into committee on the ■Public Expenditure Adjustment Bill. The. Prime Minister explained the amendments proposed. He recapitulated the figures dealing with the Hnancial position of the country. He said he proposed only to take the short title, and postpone further discussion until the amendments could be arculated and studied. The increase in the cost of government was now £4,500,000 per annum. The Premier referred tu the Railway Department, the gross increase of expenditure on which last year amounted to £1,531,534, and of this £865,000, or 56.19 per cent., represented increase in the cost of wages, salaries and conditions, the balance being due to the added cost of materials. He repeated what he said in moving the second reading, that the cost of government was too great for the country to bear and must be reduced.

Mr. Messey said it had been decided to amend the proposals covering the reductions of the second bonus of £5O. Instead of making the first cut as from January 1, the second on April 1, and the third on July 1, it was now prbposed to make the first cut during the current quarter, the second would be delayed till the July quarter, and the third would not be made till January next. In the ease of married men with families concessions would be made so that they would not be hit so hard by the reductions. In the case of young public servants only £l5 , would be taken off the bonus, and this would be spread over two cuts. He pointed out that only the second cost of living bonus was affected, and not the statutory salary or increments. The total of the public service was 36,000, of whom 8’707. were married men and 17,281 men, women and caaets were getting under £3OO per annum.

THE COST OF LIVING. Inquiries had shown that there was practically no difference in the cost of living as shown by the -food groups as against all groups. On April 1, 1920, the relative figures were 62 and 63 per cent, above the 1921 figures. He quoted the prices of various items of food, and added that he was informed there had been a considerable drop in the cost of lighting materials and clothing; drapery in the past year had dropped 60 to 80 per cent. The proposals, if given effect to, would effect savings of approximately £BOO.OOO on the first cut, £700,000 on the second, and £650,000 on the third. It was an unpleasant duty to bring down these proposals, but it had to be done, and he was doing it and he was prepared to take the consequences. The tjme had arrived when all must make sacrifices. Mr. T. M. Wiif ord (Leader of the Opposition) said the treatment of people in and out of the public service >yas unfair. A man outside getting less than £3OO a year escaped income tax, while a man in the Government service was called on fo contribute some of his salary to the State. Mr. Wilford contended the data on which the cost of living was calculated were unreliable, and he challenged the Premier’s statement that the increase in the cost of living had dropped from 62 to 52 per cent, over that of 1914. Mr. Wilford quoted cases of higher salaried men in /the public service who would lose little or nothing as compared with the lower paid. The latter, he said, should have an opportunity of getting each case reviewed. He suggested the plan of civil service salary reduction followed in England should be followed.

LABOR’S OPPOSITION. Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labor Party), said he would repeat, that the Labor Party was against, any wages reduction at all, but if it was necessary to raise money all should b? tax*ed. Mr. Holland said Labor regarded reductions in public servants’ pay as paving the way to a general reduction of wages throughout the country. The Government, in granting a rebate of land tax, had given away an amount of money equal to that which would be saved by the proposed public service salary reductions. Mr. Holland said the cost of clothing had advanced by three to four hundred per cent, on prewar prices, and he controverted the statement that there had been any considerable decrease in the prices of clothing. The bonuses paid to the lower paid ranks of the civil service were barely sufficient to meet the added cost of living.

Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) considered the public service as a. whole had rendered faithful service, but in making the reductions the cut on the lower paid ranks should be less, and more should be. taken from those receiving high salaries. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) questioned the accuracy of the Premier’s figures on the subject of the cost of living, and contended that the 62 percentage of increase, in salaries and wages was not nearly so great as the increase in the cost of living, amounting to 77 per cent. Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) said that the incidence of the proposed reductions was unfair. He proposed to move an -amendment to clause 4 when the time comes that no reduction be made on any salary under £5OO, so that members of Parliament would come into the scheme. After that the reduction would be at the rate of 10 per cent. SAVING BY THE OUTS. ! Dr. H. T. Thacker (Christchurch East) asked if the country was given a true .statement of the financial gositfon.

contending that this had not been done, and that the present difficulties were due to the way money was squandered during the war period. Mr. Massey, in a further reply, said he had just received the figures of the am unt’s expected to be saved by the proposed cuts as follows: First cut, £809,609; sficond, £645,690; third, £4'30,460; total, £1,885,840. Referring to the rebate on land tax, Mr. Massey said that if this had not been granted he would have had difficulty in collecting the tax.

Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) contended ’ that a married man with a family was going to be reduced from 8s per head per week to 5s 4d per head, and the money we were going to save was as nothing compared with the hurt done to t at man’s family and to the race by this reduction.

The Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) put in a plea for a reduced cost of government in the Dominion. If this was not done we would have a financial panic. He did not wish to lower the standard of living, but he did think the higher salaries could be reduced. Mr. W. T. Jennings (Waitomo) thought the solution of the problem was not a reduction of salaries but a stoppage of waste. Mr. T. Sidey (Dunedin .South) asked if the country was in such desperate financial straits why a rebate was given on land and income tax. The public service was the last to receive the cost of living bonus, but they were the first to be asked to give it up. Many public servants lived in boarding houses, especially in Wellington, and they received no benefit from, the reduced cost of living, because boarding house tariff had not been reduced in keeping with the fall in the cost of living. “RAID ON WAGES.” Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) said everyone -felt a reduction of salaries was a painful operation, but the House had a duty to do to the Dominion as a whole, and it was their duty to do it. There would be no reduction of the cost of living until wages were cut down; if the people had not the spending power prices must come down. Replying to Mr. J. Brown (Napier), Mr. Massey said if these proposals were not agreed to, the only alternative was that thousands of public servants would be dismissed from the service.

Mr. E. Kellett (Dunedin North) said the man who was going to be hit hardest by these reductions was tij,e man getting daily wages, and he. asked the Premier to say how he justified that. Mr. E. J." Howard (Christchurch South) said the only scientific way to get money required was by increased taxation, and those who had big incomes should be made to pay. Mr., M. J. Savage (Auckland West) endorsed this view... The present method was merely a raid upon wages generally.

Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) said the Premier’s promised relief to married men was merely charitable aid. They had to prove hardship to som one who was to probe into his private domestic affairs, and had power to discriminate between this man and that man. If the Premier would define the position in the schedule it might be a different matter.

SHORT TITLE PASSED. Dr. A. K. Newman (Wellington East) objected to the retrospective aspect of the Bill. All retrospective legislation was bad, and he suggested the Bill should not operate until next March. Mr. C. Mackenzie (Auckland East) said he was glad the Premier was providing some sort of loophole for a married man with a family by giving him the right of appeal, but he feared the concession was of a rather shadowy nature.

Mr. S. G. Smith (Taranaki) twitted the Premier with inconsistency in at one time declaring the price of our produce was going up and at the next breath declaring the cost of living was coming down. He thought the treatment of teachers was most unfair under this scheme. He thought teachers’ reductions should be put in the schedule and not left so indefinite.

Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) said the Premier had stated the country as a whole was not able to bear the burden of taxation at present pressing upon it, but under the Bill he was asking a fifth of the population to bear a burden which he said was toe great for all.

The debate closed at 12.15 a.m., when a division was taken on the first clause, which was agreed to by 61 votes to 7. Progress was then reported. Those voting against the clause were: Holland, Fraser, Savage, McCombs, Sullivan and Parry. Bartram was paired with Glenn.

REDUCTIONS RESENTED. CIVIL SERVANTS’ PROTEST. STOPPAGE OF WORK URGED. Napier, Last Night. A publie meeting of civil servants in all departments to-night passed a resolution resenting the proposals for salary reductions and urging the executives of public civil servants’ associations in various parts of the Dominion to arrange for a stoppage of work immediately the reduction is put into operation, and to convene a conference for the purpose of letting the Government understand that public opinion is satisfied that there is no necessity for reductions of workers’ wages while other legitimate sources are open for taxation. PROTEST FROM AUCKLAND. Auckland, Last Night, A meeting attended by 1006 members of the public service passed a resolution asking Auckland M.P.’s to oppose a reduction of salaries.