MEMBERS’ EXTRA PAY

Evening Star, Issue 20328, 9 November 1929, Page 3

MEMBERS’ EXTRA PAY

SESSIONAL ALLOWANCE PASSED SOME DIFFERENCE OF OPINION (FROM OUK PXHUAItSMTIBT RsPOHTJEK.] WELLINGTON, November 8. The House of Representatives was not completely unanimous over the adoption of the sessional allowance of £IOO to its members, the expressions of dissent leading to a debate in which many arguments were heard in favour of a permanent increase in The Acting Leader of the House (Mr Forbes), in moving the second rea,ding of the Appropriation Bill, said its final clause regarding sessional payment to members was in accordance with the promise of the Prime Minister to a deputation representing the three parties, which placed before him the position of members. Anyone who had experience of the position would realise the severe strain placed on members’ finances by the election, which was becoming more and more expensive as time went on. Through having to come to Wellington a member was obliged to keep two homes, and when in his electorate he had to do a great deal of expensive travelling. When times were bad, it was felt particularly by a member of Parliament, because many additional calls were made upon him, as he was regarded as a fountain-head of charity. Personally, added Mr Forbes, he had made it clear to his constituents that he regarded the remuneration as inadequate. He knew that some candidates had declared that members were too well paid, but he had spoken to some of these new members, who .had revised their ideas since they had obtained knowledge of what the position involved. So much public service was rendered by members that he ventured to say that they could not in recess pursue any ordinary avocation, though their honorarium was quite inadequate to maintain a proper position and pay their expenses. If the members of the public knew all the facts they would not hestitate to endorse what the Government was doing. A SUPERANNUATION PROPOSAL. The superannuation question had been investigated on various occasions, but there was difficulty in securing a satisfactory scheme, though something was needed to meet the position of men who gave the best years of 'their life to the public service; and the more service they rendered their country the more likely were they to reach a position of straightened circumstances when those services were dispensed with. The Government had not had time to go into the superannuation question, but it thought the position would bo met to some extent by the allowance of £IOO for this session.” ILL-TIMED AND ILL-JUDGED. “I consider this proposal to give an extra £IOO to members of Parliament ill-timed and ill-judged,” declared Mr Fletcher, the Government member for Grey Lynn. He prefaced his protest by referring to the work of the Government during the session, pointing out that something material had been done towards solving the unemployment question, and in consequence of what had been done many men and their families would spend a happier Christmas. In addition, the pensions scheme had been, liberalised to some extent, advances under the State Advances scheme had been accelerated and greatly increased, and a number of State advances for homes had been made. He believed that was quite a good record for one session. At the same time he considered that the proposal to grant members an extra £IOO was ill-timed and ill-judged. This session Parliament had imposed an additional primage duty to balance the country’s finances. It was not a question of whether members of Parliament deserved more, but rather whether the time was opportune to make the increase. Parliament had refused the Civil 'servants an increase, in some cases refusing to make salaries up to £4 a week, and the reason given was that the country’s finances could not stand it. Yet, in the face of that, members were now going to vote themselves .another £IOO because of the services they rendered. Surely it could not be said that the Civil servants were not entitled to more than they were receiving for the services they rendered. They had been told they could not be given an increase because of the finances of the country, and then members proposed to give themselves another £IOO. Mr Fletcher said ho would have to vote against the clause. A FURTHER OBJECTION. Another opponent of the proposal was found in Mr Wright (Wellington Suburbs), who began by saying that he still believed that the Reform Party’s cautious policy was right, and that Mr Downie Stewart’s policy had been' sound. The present Government was entering upon an extravagant borrowing policy, and someone would have to pay the piper. The result would be that every year more and more revenue would have to be sought, and instead of reductions in taxation there would actually be increases. “ I regret the remarks 1 am about to make, and T know that some of my friends in this House will regret them, but that cannot be helped,” said Mr Wright, who added that he was opposed to the clause in the Appropriation Bill under which all members of the House of Representatives who were not Ministers _ would-receive an extra £IOO. The Minister of Lands had justified his position in the statement he had delivered. Members of Parliament were underpaid, and all were in the position to ulmit that some members during the Moction had placed their position beore the electors. - Chorus of voices: I did.

Mr Wright said other members had not done that. Those who had stated (hey were in favour of more remuneration were now in a position to support the clause, but those who did not do so were not in that position. It was true that members who represented large districts were in a different' position from those who represented town constituencies. Calls on the purse were heavy, and travelling expenses in those electorates were also high. However, for those who had not supported an increase during the election campaign it was not fair that they should support the clause. The proper method was to go to the constituents and fight the question out in a straightforward way. Then if the members who did that were returned they were justified in supporting an increase. Mr Wilford: There were very many who did that. Mr Wright: Very well; but there were others who did not. I am bound to vote against the clause in the circumstances. It would be unjustifiable to vote for it. I regret to say to those members who are entitled to vote for it that I can’t do it. Mr Wilford: If.it is passed will you take it? _ . A Reform Member; That is the test. Mr Wright, (emphatically): “No, I

will not take it.” And with that lie sat" down, several members remarking “Hear, hear.” ; LABOUR HAS A MANDATE.

The position of the Labour members in regard to the proposed extra £IOO was made clear by the Labour Leader (Mr Holland), who said his party had been given a mandate to endeavour to obtain an increase in the remuneration for members of Parliament. In fairness to the Government and the Reform Party, he believed he should say at the outset that he would support the proposal. He would not have the least hesitation in supporting the clause. He had made his position absolutely clear to his people. Also, at the ■ Labour Party’s conference last April, when there were 110 delegates present, representing all the industrial or political organisations affiliated with the Labour Party, a remit was presented against any increase in parliamentary salaries, and an amendment was carried that, in view of the important work performed by members, it bo an instruction to the Parliamentary Labour Party to endeavour to obtain an increase in parliamentary salaries. There was only one opponent. This resolution of the Labour Conference was handed to the Press and the newspapers .of New Zealand published it broadcast. . “ I have not received a single objection to that resolution,” declared Mr Holland, who added that the only objections he had seen had come from newspaper editors, most of whom were paid £I,OOO a year, and who received extra expenses when, they were required to travel. The honorarium at present paid did not represent to Mr Holland a labourer’s wage. He would gladly supplement it if he could. During the parliamentary session ho worked from twelve to sixteen and seventeen hours a day on seven days of the week, and when Parliament was not sitting he worked twelve hours a day for seven days of the week. He did some freelance journalistic work in order to Help to keep his head above water. Mr Holland said he was satisfied that the people who sent men to Parliament to do important work did not want them to be in such a position that they did not know which way to turn, while their wives were hard put to it to meet household bills. He wound up by asserting that if he thought the public servants believed that his wife should be placed in a position of continual worry concerning financial matters and making ends meet, then he would not help the public servants one jot. It was his conviction that those men who found time week in and week out to obtain improvements for other people were fully entitled to fight for improvements for themselves. (“ Hear, hear.”) In view of all the circumstances Mr Holland believed that the Labour Party had been given a mandate to support increases for members, and he would have no hesitation in supporting the clause. MINISTER’S ADVOCACY. Mr Atmoro (Minister of Education) said he had taken an active _ part for years in an endeavour to obtain proper recognition for parliamentary work, it was a belated recognition, and the moment adult suffrage was recognised it must be made possible to enable any person to hold a member’s position. Owing to want of courage, though 75 per cent, of the members had recognised the disability, nothing had been done for years. This belated act of justice woufd be incomplete until superannuation was provided. Members of the Public Service getting £240 were better off than a member of Parliament in respect to net income. The fault was ■not with the people, who did not want low salaries; it rested with Parliament itself.

Mr,Wilford,..with the preliminary remark that Ministers were not getting any benefit, declared himself heartily in accord with the proposal. Members were not getting a living wage, and it was a stigma on the House that salaries had not been raised before.

OPPOSITION LEADER’S DIFFICULTY.

Though he had stated last election that he favoured an increase in the salary of members, Mr Coates explained that'ho had also taken up the attitude that he would not agree to it until some consideration had been given to the lower-paid grades of the Public Service. Having said that, h© must stand y Mr Lysnar: They have got £250,000. Mr Coates: “Nothing of the kind. It was what they were entitled to, and cannot be taken into consideration.” He had to bo consistent, though perhaps hardly one of his colleagues would agree with him; but ho must retain what he considered was a point of personal honour.

Mr Wilford: Does the lion, gentleman think the allowance is warranted? Mr Coates. I think the Civil Service salaries should bo considered, especially after hearing the six monthly figures, which are very healthy. Mr Semple; Why did you not vote for our motion?

Mr Coates: That was just a question whether the Labour Party should occupy the Treasury benches, and i believed in leaving things as they are.

AN ARRANGEMENT BROKEN. Mr Harris (Waitcmata) stated that the Members’ Committee had undertaken to inform the Prime Minister as to the attitude of members, and, having made inquiries among Reform members, he was told by the Leader of the Opposition that the matter was discussed in a caucus, which, with the exception of a few members (whom lie named), was unanimously in favour of the increase.

Mr Parry (Auckland Central) stated that the Members' Committee which waited on the Prime Minister was offered & £SO allowance, but on being referred to members it was unanimously refused As a result of'inquiries among the three parties the members of the committee were able to report to the Prime Minister that the House would be unanimous on the proposal. “ i will accept the increase, and my hand won’t shake when I take it, because 1 have earned it,” concluded Mr Parry. Mr Fletcher (Grey Lynn) declared that he was not consulted on the matter.

Mr Semple: We did not know you were in the picture. Mr Samuel (Thames) declared that those who talked about a division on the clause were guilty of breach of faith with their fellow-members. Mr Wright, when the clause was reached in committee, raised his voice against the adoption, and all the formalities preceding a division were observed. However, he relented at the last moment, and the Bill passed without challenge.