HIGH SALARIES

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 24, 28 July 1943, Page 4

HIGH SALARIES

DISPUTE IN HOUSE

REFERENCE TO A "RACKET" Reference to the stopping of "a racket for £7000 a year in connection with the Commercial Broadcasting Service was made in the House of Representatives last night by the Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) when he disagreed with criticism made by Mr. J. A. Lee (Democratic Labour, Grey Lynn) of the amount of the salary paid to Mr. James Roberts as a Waterfront Control Commissioner. Mr. Lee denied that he had anything to do with the fixing of the sum of £7000. Speaking on the vote for the Department of Labour, which included the expenses of the Waterfront Control Commission, Mr. Lee criticised the salary of £1250 a year paid to Mr. Roberts by a Government which, he said, had stabilised workers' wages, and was paying postmen £4 18s a week., He wondered whether Mr. Roberts would be a Waterfront Commissioner if the men on the- wharf had a vote on the matter. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr. Parry) remarked that Mr. Lee had not mentioned "Scrim." The Prime Minister said that Mr. Lee had always advocated large salaries, particularly for his friends, and in this connection the Prime Minister spoke of a man "whose hands did not shake when he tried to put across a racket for-£7OOO a year." Mr. Lee: The honourable member knows who fixed the £7000 a year. It was fixed by the Minister of Finance, and against my will. \ The Prime Minister: I know who stopped it. I did. The Prime Minister said that Mr. Lee had not tried to stop the racket which was attempted in the Commercial Broadcasting Service. It had been necessary, when establishing the Waterfront Control Commission, to pay high salaries to get the best men. MR. LEE'S DISCLAIMER. Mr. Lee said he had nothing to do with the fixing of the salary of the present Controller of Broadcasting or of the late Controller of Commercial Broadcasting. When it was originally suggested that the late Controller should handle radio broadcasting on a commission figure the sum was fixed at 22J per cent, after he supplied all the services, so that he would have gone into bankruptcy. That had definitely been proved. Someone in Cabinet, not associated with him (Mr. Lee) in any way—he had no say in the matter—had insisted on the 22| per cent being reduced to a net commission. The man who insisted on that figure was under the impression that he was reducing the amount by fixing it at a figure which Mr. Lee thought was too high. There was no word or phrase on record to prove that he was for the 22a per cent, plus the Controller supplying full advertising services, at which he would have gone bankrupt. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Webb) said that the fixing of salaries was dei termined before the Waterfront Com- ' mission had been appointed. When it was realised that the Commissioners had handled goods to the value of £200,000,000 it would be seen that the salaries were not very large. One of the first men who had protested against the amount of the salaries was Mr. Roberts himself.