THE £l00 BONUS

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 56, 29 November 1929, Page 12

THE £l00 BONUS

MR. WRIGHT’S ATTITUDE “NOT INCONSISTENT” An allegation by Mr. W. K. Parry, Labour member for Auckland Central, that Mr. It. A. Wright, Reform member for "Wellington Suburbs, was inconsistent in declining to accept the £lOO allowance which the members of the House of Representatives voted themselves at the close of the recent session, was replied to by Mr. Wright yesterday. "Mr. Parry has stated that my action in refusing the £lOO bonus, and yet drawing £2OO house allowance when. I was a Minister of the Crown, whilst living in my own house, is inconsistent,” said Mr. Wright. “In reply, I have to say that my action was not inconsistent; there is no analogy between the two actions. It is correct that there is a house allowance of £2OO for Ministers of the Crown when living in Wellington, but this, as I will show, is part of the Ministerial salary. The Act is quite clear and explicit on the point.

“The first reference to the matter that I have been able to find is ‘an Act to amend the Civil List Act, 1863,’ passed in 1873 (vide New Zealand Statutes, 1873, page 342, clause 5). Clause 5 reads as follows: —Tn addition to the annual salaries payable under this Act to members of the Executive Council holding any one or more of the offices mentioned in the Third Schedule hereto, there shall be payable to each such member of the Executive Council to whom a salary is payable under this Act, and who is not otherwise provided at the cost of the colony with a residence at the seat of Government, an allowance in lieu of such residence at the rate of £l5O a year, and the said allowance shall and may be issued and paid out of the Consolidated Fund.’

' “This Act was amended in 1887 by an Act amending the Civil List Act, and the amending Act of 1873. Clause 7 of this Act says, ‘The allowance provided for in the fifth section of the said Act shall be at the rate of £2OO a year instead of £150.’ That amendment increased the amount to £2OO per year, where it still rests. In 1908 this amendment was incorporated in the Consolidated Statutes.” It was quite evident from the wording of the clause, said Mr. Wright, that any Minister who was not provided at the cost of the Dominion with a residence at the seat of Government was entitled to £2OO per year, in addition to his salary, regardless t>f his place of abode. “When I took office,” he said, “I was not informed as to the salary I was to receive, and I took it for granted that I would be paid what was customary and according to law. As far as I can discover every Minister of the Crown from 1873 up to the present day who was placed in similar circumstances to myself has been paid the house allowance. Further, if there had been any irregularity, or inconsistency in the payment, the Audit Department would have interfered. In brief, the position is simply that if a Minister was provided with a Ministerial residence £2OO was deducted from his salary. If he was not provided with a Ministerial residence the £2OO was part of his salary. I don’t see any connection between my action in this respect and the £lOO bonus.”

“A SCURVY TRICK” MR. NASH’S VIEWS A severe attack upon the Leader of the Opposition (Right Hon. J. G| Coates) was made by Mr. W. Nash, Labour candidate for the Hutt seat, when speaking on the question of M.P.’s salaries during his address at Petone last night. “The members who are elected to the New Zealand Parliament receive an annual salary of £450, free transport on the Government railways, and an allowance for postage stamps. Ministers of the Crown receive larger salaries, ranging up to £l2OO per annum,” said Mr. Nash. “During the last session of Parliament the 68 members other than Ministers we»e voted an allowance of £lOO each. There has been some controversy over the question, and the Right. Hon. J. G. Coates and Messrs. R. A. Wright and W. J. Polson have announced their intention of refusing the amount, whilst this morning's papers announce that Mr. H. R. Jenkins, the member for Parnell, Auckland, will give his £lOO to the Diocesan High School for Girls in Auckland.

Are Members Underpaid? “Maj’ I set out the facts of the situation? The present payment of £450 to all members is unfair in that the members from outside districts have to keep two homes going when in Wellington during the Parliamentary session, and in addition those representing country districts have heavy travelling expenses to meet in visiting the parts of the electorate away from the railway. Against this is the fact that the members in the metropolitan area have heavy calls on their pockets in other directions, but even with this qualification the financial load carried by the country member is unjust and unfair. One of them, a member of the Reform Party, representing one of the largest country electorates, told me in the House of Representatives this session that the whole of his salary went in expenses.

“You will agree,” continued Mr. Nash, “that some provision should be made to make the payments more equal and to recompense the outside members for the second home required during the Parliamentary session, and the country members for heavier Travelling expenses. With these facts in mind representatives of all the parties met, and after discussion it was agreed that the Government should be approached and asked to make provision for the expenses I have detailed. The Government agreed and the allowance previously mentioned was placed before Parliament. Several members spoke in support of the allowance, and then Mr. Coates made one of the most unjust statements I have heard. “Not Unanimous.” “Before repeating the statement I desire to point out that the agreement had been made by all parties, but Hat the members of all the parties were not unanimous. I know of members mi at least one of the parties who did not consider I hat the allowance should have been made last session, but the Government had been approached by representatives of all parties, and a scene took place in the House of Representatives after Mr. Coates had spoken. Mr. Harris, the Reform member for Waitemata, stated the facts and concluded by saying that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Coates who had told him that certain members had offered objection, but that the party had decided not to oppose the proposal. It is a scurvy trick to assume the virtue of not taking the money when they had not the courage to record their voice against it. When the question was up before the House for decision a division was called for, but the members opposed bad not the courage of their convictions in that they finally decided not to call for a division but to allow the matter to go on the voices.

His Personal Opinion. “Now, may 1 tell you my personal opinion,” said Mr. Nash. “I have always advocated that the travelling expenses of members representing country electorates should be paid, and that some allowance should be made to outside members on account of hotel and other expenses in Wellington. No political, industrial or social organisation or business firm would expect its servants to defray their own expenses and we ought not to expect our members to do so. But, having said that, I consider the time for adjusting the anomalies was inopportune, and particularly in the closing days of the session. Inopportune because the Government, supported by the Reform Party, had just turned down a request

from the Public servants for an increase in salary which was as sound on the evidence as the case for the members of Parliament, and the Government had, in addition, refused an admitted claim by the school committees for increased grants. “The Labour members were the only men who acted consistently. They used all the power to obtain the increase for the Public servants, but were defeated by a combination of the other parties. The time was inopportune, but there is no credit coming to either Mr. Coates or Mr. Wright if they obtain a cheap advertisement after the party to which they belong had approached the Government to make the allowance. Neither are they entitled to assume the virtue of selfsacrifice unless the members’ £450 is the total of their political income. There is no need to worry about either Mr. Jenkins or Mr. Polson. They both have sufficient cash on hand that £lOO here or there makes little difference.”

MR. KERR “ASHAMED” WHAT MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE DONE Deference to the subject was also made by Mr. J. Kerr, the United Party candidate, in his opening address at Eastbourne last night. ■ “It is one of the things I am ashamed members of Parliament did,” he said, amid applause. “I think it could very well have been left out of the closing hours of the session. I think it would have been better for all parties if they had taken up the attitude of saying: ‘We have too much unemployment here and too many underpaid waiting to get redress. We cannot with any degree of decency accept this money because we cannot meet our liabilities.’ If they had done that they would have risen in the public estimation. But they have taken it, and, what is more, it has been made the subject of a great deal of talk.” Some members were willing now to forgo the money. The Prime Minister had accepted an assurance that all parties had agreed to the increase in caucus on a unanimous vote. Mr. Coates must have been a consenting party to the arrangement. INVERCARGIL PROTEST By D'lcerapli.—Press Association Invercargill. November 28. The following resolution was passed at a special meeting of the Southland branch of the Railway Officers’ Institute: ■ —“This meeting of. the Southland branch of the Railway Officers’ Institute desires to place on record its resentment at the action of the members of the New Zealand Parliament, who, after expressing general approval of the justice of the claims of Civil Servants to have the salary cuts restored, subsequently refused to restore the cuts on the score of financial stringency, and thereafter voted themselves a handsome bonus of £lOO (an amount approximately 300 per cent, in excess of that individually due to Civil Servants and 100 per cent, in excess of the reduction in their own salaries under tiie Public Expenditure Adjustment Act. 1922) ; we also note that prominent politicians now show a desire to see something done for the lower paid men only —i.e., those drawing up to £295 per annum. In this connection it is only fair to urge that if members of the Legislature drawing £450 per annum are entitled to an increase of £lOO (and we do not deny the justice of their claim), surely consideration should be given to the claims of all members of the Civil Service receiving up to a like amount. Too much is being made of regrading. As a matter of fact it is questionable whether up to the present time the regrading schemes have affected more than 5 per cent, of the members of the clerical branches of the various Civil Service Departments.”'

Injured in Motor-Cycle Accident.— A young man, Erie Smith, aged 18, of Hunterville, was admitted to hospital at Dunedin yesterdaj’ with a fracture of the left leg (states a Press Association telegram). He was riding a motor-cyele down Hangman’s Gully on the lipper Junction Road when it skidded and ran over a bank with him.