Page 3 Advertisements Column 4

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 184, 4 August 1900, Page 3

MINISTERS' SALARIES. _* SPEECH BY THE PREMIER. SECOND READING CARRIED. (By Telegraph.-Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. ing of the Ministers' Salaries and Allowances Bill, in the House of Representatives, said he did so with some diffidence (Hear, hear from the Opposition benches), because it was a measure in' which he had a personal interest, but lils desire was to assure that for the future Ministers should receive a salary adequate to their position.. In the ordinary course of things it could not be expected that he would remain many more years in office, but whether his future term of office might be long or short he must say that the salaries at present were too small. It was said that when the elections were approaching the Opposition suggested that Ministers' salaries should be raised, in the belief that the Government would bo ousted in the elections, and that the Opposition would enjoy the benefit of the increase. When the existing salaries Were fixed there were only 22 Departments, but since then, though the population had largely increased, there had been no increase in the number of Ministers, notwithstanding that the work had greatly increased. Besides the regular salaries, £6500 had been spent in personal allowances. Prom an ordinary business,, standpoint the amount paid to Ministers had not been sufficient to enable them to make such provision as they should for their families. The present reduced salaries were fixed at a time when rigid retrenchment was ndcessary in all brunches of the public service. It was a self-sacrifice, which was meant to be Only temporary. They were.then reducing the salaries from the Governor downwards. Had they not done so there would have been strong dissatisfaction throughout the colony. Retrenchment was carried out to the amount of £300.000, while additional taxation was imposed to the same amount. In all, the savings reached nearly a million. The Ministry had to Set an example to. the people. As to the Civil servant's, the ten per cent, deduction had been restored. Mr T. Mackenzie: No. The Premier (firmly): I say yes. Mf Mackenzie (shouting): I say no.. The Premier: The hon. gentleman's contradiction goes for nothing When the facts are against him. When the existing Ministers' salaries were fixed the population was very much smaller than it is now. In business it was a recognised rule that the highest paid servants were tho most efficient. In New South Wales the Ministerial salaries amounted to a total of £13, 200, and the Premier was paid £1820 a year. With the expenses of the Civil Service Board the total was. brought up to £17,000. In Victoria the total was £10,400, while the Premier received £2000. At present Ministers' salaries in Victoria were £1040, but in that colony Ministers only devoted a portion of their time to the public service. Recently one Premier carried on a leadinglegal business. The New Zealand Parliament demanded-.that Ministers should devote the whole, of their time to public business. At. present the Inspector of Asylums received £1250 a year, and the General Manager of Railways £1000, whilst the Ministers received £1000, and the Minister of Railways received only £800. It was now proposed that the Minister Of Railways shall receive £1300, With £200 household allowance. The Minister of Railways In this colony had serious responsibilities, and the duties of his Department demand unremitting attention. The late Minister of Railways, a plodding, careful administrator, had to retire from tho position shattered in health, having received comparatively meagre remuneration for his arduous services. He would say emphatically that, under existing conditions, no Minister should be expected to sit on those benches for a less sum than was proposed in the Bill. Compare the salaries of bank managers and inspectors, who received from £2000 to £2500 a year. Parliament had been practically sweating its Ministers. He believed Ministers of the Crown might have done better in positions outside political life. There was honour in serving one' 3 fellow-men, but where the country had prospered under their administration, though that might in some degree compensate for the sacrifice incurred, it was only Just that they should bo adequately remunerated for their services., In 1863 the expenditure for Ministers was" £34,000, but there were now six more Departments. There had been complaints of correspondence not being promptly answered, and of money not having been spent In districts where it had been promised, but this "was accounted for by the fact that Ministers were overworked. The tendency was to leave the administration to heads of Departments. Were they content to allow this to continue? « NUMBER OF MINISTERS. The Premier -went on to contend that an Increase In the number of Ministers wdhld be an actual saving of money to tho colony. It might be urged that nine Ministers out of 74 members Was too large a proportion, but the number was only ade-, quate to tho increased population. If It was proved conclusively that an increased number of members was necessary in proportion to revenue and population, It Would be absurd to contend that Ministers should remain as at present for all time. Practically there had beern seven Ministers, and now the House was asked to increase the number by two. . . NORTH ISLAND HAS ONLY TWO" MINISTERS. The North Island, in which there had been a larger growth of population than. In the South Island, was represented by only two Ministers. He expressed the hope that the bill would be read a second time by the unanimous voice" of the House, and that amy personal references to Ministers Would be avoided.' Neither Ministers nor members were sufficiently remunerated by the country which demanded their services. As to the assertion that the question had not been submitted to the people, the statement had been made in the Conservative press that Ministers were '(inadequately paid. It might be asked why the proposals had not been brought down before. Ministers felt that It would be only fair that those who had made the reductions In the salaries In years past should have the opportunity of restoring them to the original amount. The whole question was this: Was the country desirous of exacting services from Ministers for which they were Inadequately paid? (Ministerial cheers.) THE VOICE OF THE OPPOSITION. Captain Russell said there was an underlying principle in the bill against which the Mouse would have to fight most strenuously. He disclaimed any desire. or intention to treat the question from a' personal standpoint, but he thought the Premier had attempted to prove too much. Whatever pay might be made to Ministers, it was certain that in the event of the death of a Minister, Parliament would be called upon to make provision for his family. He (Cap- ■ tain Russell) wus in no way opposed to the payment of fair galaxies for efficient work, but hi such cases aa the Commissioner of Posts and Telegraphs, and Colonial Secretary,'the duties of administration were uot onerous. He thought the term 'tploddlng" as applied to the eX-Mlnlster of rßallwuys exactly described him, but the minute attention' Which lie devoted to the details of Ills department prevented the late Minister of Railways from devoting his attention to the higher principles of administration. In reality, there was no analogy between the Minister of Hallways and the managers, if their relative capacities were compared it would be found that so far as practical knowledge was concerned, the Minister would not be qualified for a position above that of a statlonmaster.' The. Minister must, to a large extent, rely upon the expert knowledge aud experience of his officers, his main function being *to lay down the broad principles of railway policy, to which his officers would have to give practical effect. As to the argument that the Ministers? in Australia found time to devote themselves to private business, though the population and revenue of colonies snch as victoria were one-half larger than in New Zealand, this only went to prove that Ministers iv this colony were not over-worked. Whilst he did not object to an Increase in the salaries of Ministers, he strongly condemned their using their allowances In travelling throughout the colony for the purpose of attacking their political opponents. Those who were familiar with the history of the colony knew that many able Civil servants had been driven out of the colony and forced to accept positions In Western Australia and elsewhere, because Ministers had refused to pay them salaries commensurate with their services. ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROPOSALS. The proposals In the Bill • involved an expenditure of £15,950 exclusive, .of travelling allowances. In addition to this there was provision for two Maoris or half-castes. In fact, the Bill proposed to double the amount previously fixed for Ministerial salaries and allowances. He went on to quote figures showing that when- the House comprised 95 members there were only five ministers, or about 6 per cent. With 74 members, there were to.be 11 ministers, including tha two Maoris or half-castes, or a per-