MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 9833, 4 August 1900, Page 5

MINISTERS' SALARIES.

Discussion in the House.

Bill Bead a Second Time.

In the House of Representatives last -evening Mr Seddon moved the second reading of the Ministers' Salaries and Allowances Bill. He said it was "with some diffidence he made the motion, as he was personally interested, but he •could say. that it was the first time since he was a Minister of the Crown that he •was in such a position. But, for years past he had asserted that Ministers of the Crown were not fairly remunerated, and the occasion would test the sincerity of those members who from time to tim.3 had told h'm that the salaries were not sufficient. He referred to the state of depression existing in the colon} , at the thnti the rpductio i t-ok place. At that time the tinai.ces if 'he colony had to be balanced by a re. Suction in the salaries of civil servants, and increased taxation. ■Sir Harry Atkinson set the example of retrenchment by first reducing the salaries of Ministers, a m Miction only intended as a temporary measure. He, Mr Seddon, was one of those who believed in paying ;good salaries to competent men, believing the services renieied by sucii men were cheaper than asmall sa'ary for inferior men The rate at present paid Ministers was actually less than paid some of the heads of the departments of the public service, which was unfair considering the responsibility devolving upon the former. While the colony had set its face against •sweating in any department of private industry, Ministers had themselves been sweated by the State. The colony had I prospered during the past ten years. It was not for him to say that it was due to the administration of Ministers, but the •feeling had been borne in upon him lately that the sacrifices he had rr.ade had not been remunerated \o the extent he had a riyht to expect, nor commensurate with the remuneration paid to managers of private concerns. He also defended the prop<*3al to increase the number of Ministers, believing that it would pay the colony if that were done. Captain Russt-ll said there were two essential principles in the bill, and it. wouW have been better if the House had -bee i given an opportunity of discussing them separately, viz., the increased number and differentiation in the pay of Ministers. He did not think it a fair inference that the gratuities of £750, referred to by the Premier as beini.' paid to former Ministers, was made on account of the small salaries paid them. He had no intention to oppose the increase in salaries, and believed Ministers ought to .be well paid, but opposed the principle of differentiation proposed in the bill. The constant assertions that Ministers' health broke down onaucount ot the strain of depar! mental duties were erroneous. Their work had been greatly increased by unnecessary attention to detail matters ihat ought 'o have been left to the subordinate officers of ihe different departments. If Ministers in Victoria, with its large population and greater social ■duties, could afford to devote half time to private business, it indicated that there was something wrong in theadministration of their departments by the Ministers of this colony. By all means pay Ministers an ample salary, but do away with travelling allowances, which •were simply used as a means of enabling them to go about the colony, ostensibly on public business, but really for electioneering purposes. The proposal in the bill provided for the expenditure of £15,950, or nearly double the amount at present. He admitted the Premier had ■worked hard, but in a direction not in the intertsts of the colour, but demoralising to it. Mr Morrison defended the amount of traveling expenses allowed Ministers, and compared the depressed state of the colony ten or twelve years ago with the present prosperity, the latter being the result of a more 1 be>al administration of the public service by the party that succeeded the former bundling management. With regard to the Rail-1 way Department he believed it would j pay the colony to give the Minister of Railways £2000 a year, instead of the miserable sum at present given. Mr T. Mackenzie thought it quite clear that the country was favorable to an increase in Ministers' salaries, but was not quite so clear that the people were in favor of an increase in the number of Ministers. ' Mr Millar was in favor of increasing the salaries of Ministers, but condemned the proposal to increase the number. He ' would vote for the second reading of the bill, but in committee would oppose an increase iv the number of Ministers. Mr Napier thonght the proposals in the bill were very moderate. He did not be lieve in any increase in the number of members of the House unless the North Island should get its due in regard to the proportion of members represeating that portion of the colony. The bll was further discussed after -the telegraph office closed. At 2 a.m. Mr MeLachlan moved the adjournment of the debate. —Lost by 37 to 9. Mr McGuire opposed the bill. Mr Eraser was opinion that Ministers' salaries should be increased, but opposed f an increase in the number of Ministers. ' Mr Pirani opposed both proposals in the bill. Hβ pointed out that Mr Seddon received in addition to his salary as Premier, £250 a year as member of the Assets Realisation Board. Mr Ell would support a moderate increase In the Premier's and second Minister's salaries, but would oppose increasing any others. He was also oppcsed to any increase in the number of members of the executive, and believed there were* men in the Liberal party much better able to occupy the position of Minister than tome of those at present holding portfolios. Mr Monk condemned the bill, considering the amount at present paid to Ministers sufficient. Mr R. McKenzie supported the bill. The Premier replied, and the second reading was carried by 36 to 12.