PARLIAMENT SALARIES OF MEMBERS

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27636, 18 April 1955, Page 10

PARLIAMENT SALARIES OF MEMBERS

Revision Proposals APPARENT UNITY OF PARTIES

(From Our. Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, April 17. At least one item of legislation to be introduced this year appears likely to receive a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives. It will be legislation carrying into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission, yet to be appointed, that will consider the salaries and expense allowances of members. The printing in “The Press” on Friday of a report that members of Parliament were taking steps to increase their salaries and allowances was fol* lowed by swift developments. A meeting of the Cabinet was called for the unusual hour of 1 p.m., after the morning session of the House. Not till 40 minutes later, when the Prime Minister (Mr Holland) announced the Government’s intention to set up a Royal Commission, did speculation end.

Members generally had nothing to Say. Although the two parties were in the midst of a no-confidence debate, they were in accbrd, as in the past, about their willingness to accept higher salaries. In 1944, representatives of both the Labour Government and the National Opposition met in close secrecy, and quickly agreed that their salaries should be increased, although the Stabilisation Regulations, checking wage and salar” increases, were then in force.

Again in 1951, when legislation giving substantial increases in honoraria and tax-free allowances was introduced, as a result of recommendations by a Royal Commission, members on both sides of the House were as one. No Private Negotiation

On this occasion, there has been no behind-the-scenes negotiation between the parties. Ever since the Arbitration Court made its general wage orders, Parliamentarians have complained to one another and to their friends, not without good cause, that their incomes have remained fixed though the cost of living has risen. The Government party made its own decision that another Royal Commission should be appointed to make recommendations for a statutory revision of Parliamentary salaries and allowances, and also that legislation should be introduced enabling a commission to make reviews after every General Election.

The proposal was conveyed to the Opposition practically as a decision already made. If the Opposition had had any objections, the Government members would have persisted in seeking a revision of the payments. There appear to have been no objections. Even Cabinet Ministers complain that the present salaries are insufficient to meet their costs of living and the maintenance of their dignity and status, both in their homes and in public life. They may produce their evidence before the commission. y One member of the Cabinet considers that since he became a Minister he has been £2OOO out of pocket, and another says he has spent £5OOO from his private means. The latter admits, however, that he was not compelled to dip so deeply into his own pocket. Refurbishing of Building

Members are looking forward to some improvement not only in their general standard of living, but also in their standard of comfort in Parliament Buildings. The furnishings of many of the members* rooms are very antiquated, and refurnishing schemas are being considered. The first room to be renovated has been that of Mr A. McLagan (Opposition, Riccarton), in the old library wing. The room has been furnished with a green leather settee,-a natural wood writing desk, writing chair of natural wood with green leather upholstery, and a combined coat cupboard afld glass-fronted bookcase, also in natural wood.

The room was inspected a few days ago by the Prime Minister, whose suite in the penthouse is up to 1955 standard. The Minister of Finance (Mr J. T. Watts) also has a modernly-decorated and furnished office. Pinus timber was used for the furniture. The cost of redecoration of Mr Watts’s room was surprisingly low—only about £lBO. Whether all the members will be pleased with the removal of their old black leather chesterfields and other furnishings, which have for decades appeared on the inventory of assets of the Legislative Department, is doubtful. Short Working Weeks The conduct of the House this session so far is not strong evidence that, judged by the time spent on public business, the Parliamentarians can claim that they are underpaid for hard work. .There has not been a full four-day working week since the House assembled for the first time on March 22; and last Friday was the first Friday on which the House has met this session.

The foreign affairs debate was followed by the Address-in-Reply debate, in which there have been only rare flashes of the party conflict that the electorate could well expect.

Because select committees have not been appointed—notice of their appointment was given by the Government as late as Friday—the members have not done any business in committees. At one time committee work was considered one of the major responsibilities of members, and most of their non-sitting time was spent at meetings of select committees. Difficulties in obtaining quorums for committee meetings were frequently commented on in the lobbies during the last Parliament; and frequently members had to rush from one committee to -another to make up the requisite numbers. Only one morning of each week is now available for committee work. Tuesday sittings are difficult to arrange, because many members do not reappear after their long week-end breaks until the afternoon. Wednesday is the only clear morning, as both parties hold their regular caucuses on Thursday; and the House may sit from 9.30 a.m. on Fridays. Increased Debating Strength

The speeches made so far in the Address-in-Reply debate have indicated the House is stronger in debating strength on both sides. Only Mr Pd N. Holloway (Opposition, Heretaunga). among the new members, has displayed the fluency of more experienced politicians. He has a confidence' which most of the other new members who have spoken must yet gain. Mr Holloway showed assurance' when, during discussion of Ministerial: replies to questions last Wednesday, he encountered a barrage of inter jec-' tions from the Government front: benchers. He was more certain of his facts than was the new Opposition! member for Napier, Mr J. G. Edwards.! whose volubility at question time has already made him a target for Government critics.

Mr Edwards made his first speech in the House during the discussion of questions, and he was not kindly received. Usually, members making their first speeches, whether in formal debate or in a discussion, are heard with benign tolerance and in silence, even if their opponents and their colleagues may think they are not acquitting themselves well, or their statements are erroneous. But Mr Edwards talked himself out of being rewarded with the usual courtesy. Mr F. L. A. Gotz (Government, Manukau) startled all by referring to “the arrogance and ignorance of the young member for Napier.” For the first time this session, the House will have its normal four-day sitting this week. But in the next week, the House will not meet till Wednesday, so that members can attend Anzao Day services in their | electorates.