THE MAGISTRATES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 36, 11 August 1923, Page 13

THE MAGISTRATES

BETTER SALARIES WANTED

QUESTION OF SUPERANNUATION.

A plea for better salaries for Magistrates was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wilford) in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. . ■ ■

In 1920, said Mr. Wilford, the then Minister of Justice (the Hon. E. P. Lee) stated that the Magistrates in. the metropolitan centres should be paid £1000 a year. Magistrates were given an increase of £100 in 1920, but in 1921 £63 was taken off. Mr. Wilford eaidi that the Magistrates could' not earn the ordinary superannuation, but they had had to contribute 10 per cent, of their salaries to the fund. The reason why they could not get sufficient superannuation was because their period of service was small, as compared with a Civil servant who entered the Civil Service at the age of 16. Every session of Parliament imposed new obligations on Magistrates; therefore, it was the duty of the House to pay them well. Judges were paid a high retiring allowance, but. he did not object to that. The promise made by Mr. Lee in 1920 should be carried "out. Mr. Wilford said* that no one knew the amount of work Magistrates had to .perform. As a matter of fact, there should be a Superannuation Act for the Magistrates. ...

The Minister of Justice (the Hon. C. J. Parr) said that Magistrates in the main centres were paid £900, less 10 per cent, for superannuation. The Magistrates were better paid -now than 30 or' 40 years ago; In those days they were very often men who had not passed law examinations, but it was surprising the good class of man that was obtained in those days. They dispensed justice very well. • ' Mr. Wilford: "I remember when they decided that a fowl was not an animal/ (Laughter.)

Mr. Parr said he would, consider during the recess the question-of Magisterial salaries.

Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) protested against the overworking of. Magistrates, and mentioned a case in his district in which the legal profession believed the local Magistrate was overtaxed. '

Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) referred to the status of the Magistrates, and said he understood they could be dismissed without the right to appeal. That was different from the case of the Judge of the Supreme Court. They could '_ be discharged at three months' notice, like ordinary Civil servants. No definite' instances.had come to his notice, but he would like the Minister to consider a new provision giving them the right of appeal. Mr. G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) made reference to the closing of Police Courts in country districts, thus necessitating people having Court business to travel some distance to appear before a Magistrate. He regarded the closing of the country Courthouses as a retrograde step. He suggested that before a Court was closed, the residents of the district should be consulted. , ■ .

.• xhe Minister said the explanation'probably was that the work was so small that there was no justification for. sittings.

Sir John Luke (Wellington North) also urged-that something better should be done for Magistrates in the way of superannuation.

The Minister said! that he had given careful consideration to the question of superannuation for Magistrates, and he was drafting a Bill on the matter, which would have to be submitted to Cabinet. He did not care to say more than that "at the present moment but he was hoping that something would be done.