t.—6a.

156

[b. w. mcvilly.

4. I want to make it clear to the Committee that the annual cost at the end of four years xvill not exceed the amount of £30,260 xx'e have stated? —I am not prepared to admit even that, because I have already stated that you cannot stop at one class in estimating cost of such proposals as are being considered. The men xvho are in the class now at £255 will not be content to remain in that class and see others put into the class on the same footing as themselves; they xvill claim to go to a class higher, and then the cost xvould be higher still. 5. You know we have not taken everything into consideration? —Yes, there are lots of questions you have not taken into consideration xvhich the Department has to. Where you are dealing with other people's money it is very nice and convenient to overlook things, and that is one of the things you have overlooked. 6. Is it not a fact that the annual cost xvill not exceed £30,000 at the end of four years?— The annual cost foi the fourth year will be £29,935. Add that to the aggregate for the previous three years, making £87,135 for four years; afterxvards take £29,935 per annum, and then add on the amount for the previous four years : that is xvhat your scheme is costing. 7. That is, your annual cost xvould be £87,1)00 per annum more? —I have told you that at the end of four years the cost xvill be £87,135; then for the fifth year, £29,935, added to the £87,135. That xvill give you about £116,000, and so you go on ad infinitum. 8. That is the aggregate cost? —Yes, and it is the aggregate cost you have to deal xvith. What you are trying to do is to get this matter dealt xvith on an annual cost, forgetting conveniently that the annual cost does not represent the cost at all. You are leaving out your aggregations. If you give a man a £10 increase on £200 salary, in three years that is not £10 increase, but £30 increase. It is the aggregations you have got to deal xvith. 9. The Chairman.] You say £87,000 is the aggregation? —Yes; and then on that you have to put £29,000 for the next year. 10. Mr. O'Loughlen.] You keep on adding on from year to year?— That is the money the Department has to pay. 11. Hon. Mr. Millar.] Taking 2,000 officers, how many xvould be included —how many officers would that £30,000 be divided amongst ?—Roughly, 550. 12. That is, £30,000 per annum for 550 men? —Yes. 13. Mr. Ross.] I understand that you in no way dispute the officers' figures except that the total arrived at by you is the aggregation? —I do dispute them. 14. Your aggregation is taken over four years as compared xvith the annual increased expenditure as shoxvn by the officers in their statement? —I dispute their figures. I say their figures are inaccurate and misleading, and I have shown xvhere they are inaccurate and misleading. 15. That is, assuming that you confine yourself strictly to the present proposals of the institute? —This table of the Department's is worked out on the same basis at the institute's table, and it shows clearly that the table submitted by the institute is inaccurate and misleading. 16. In other words, that you have not taken into consideration anything outside that xvhich is taken into consideration by the officers in dealing with their statement? —I have dealt xvith the staff as xve xvould deal with them in classification. It is not xvhat the Officers' Institute say would be done, but xvhat the Committee xvants to knoxv is the position the Department would take up if a certain thing xvere done —that is, supposing we altered the classification to-morrow, xvhat would you do in connection xvith the men now in the service, and our total is worked out on that. 17. So that your tot til is not xvorked out on the basis of their proposals, but on the basis of what you say xvould happen following on the heels of.their proposal? —My refutation of the officers' figures is arrived at by an examination of their figures, xvhich shoxv that the position has been put in a misleading way. 18. But in your calculations have you embraced anything beyond the definite proposals made by the officers ?—I have already stated that xve have worked out the same staff on the same basis as the Officers' Institute have done, and in the way that the staff would be worked out by the Department if it xvere classifying the staff to-morrow tinder a new Act; and in that connection I may tell you this : that if it had been xvorked out on the basis of the Officers' Institute my figures would have been increased materially. I did not want to exaggerate the position at all, but xvanted to put the position clearly before the Committee. I wanted the Committee to understand exactly xvhat the position would he if the alteration was made, and at the same time I have shown that the figures presented by the Officers' Institute are inaccurate and misleading. 19. So that your results have not been obtained on the same basis as the officers?— Yes, they have; but they are xvorked out in a proper xvay on the basis of the number of the staff. 20. And beyond the number of men, in every other respect it is the same?—l have xvorked out our scale on xvhat xvould be done by the Department under that classification, and the Officers' Institute has not done it in that xvay. 21. In working out the figures you have taken into consideration something which you conclude would happen as a conseqence of something done by the officers? —If an alteration xvere made and xve had to deal xvith the men, it would have to be done in the manner provided here. 22. In other xvords, consequent upon these proposals being carried into effect, other proposals that are not included in the officers' statement xx'ould become necessary for the Department to carry on in xx-hat they consider a satisfactory manner? —If I am to understand from that question, Mr. Chairman, that the implication is that we have included in this statement something that would have to be undertaken differently if the officers' proposals xvere carried into effect, then that impression is quite erroneous. I have said that these figures are xvorked out on what would have to be done by the Department in respect of those particular men if the Officers' Institute proposal were carried into effect, and without making any provision for the extra promotions, which would only cost us about £75,000 m five years. 23. Mr. Witty.] You say there are 6*50 men affected ?—Yes, about that.