IS SALARY ADEQUATE?

Evening Star, Issue 21581, 29 November 1933, Page 6

IS SALARY ADEQUATE?

HIGH COMMISSIONER'S POSITION WIDELY DIVERGENT VIEWS (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, ~No vember 28. Widely divergent views concerning the salary and allowances of the High Commissioner for New Zealand (Sir - Thos. Wilford) , were heard in the House when the estimated expenditure for the year for this office, amounting to £20,758, was under discussion. “New Zealand’s High Commissioner is the poorest paid High Commissioner in London,” declared Mr. Jordan, who pointed out that while New Zealand paid £1,575 per annum, the Australian and Canadian High Commissioners each received £5.000, and South Africa paid its High Commissioner £3,500. He wondered how the job was done at all. The official entertainment allowance last year was £129, yet the Now Zealand High Commissioner had to take his place with those who received much more liberal salaries. It was little ;wonder that the Prime Minister had said recently that a man could not fill the office unless he had a, private income. The question for the Government to decide was whether the office should he run or not. It had been suggested that the office was overstaffed, but • Jiis own experience was that there were queues of people waiting there all .day,, waiting to -get , information about Now Zealand and its trade from a staff not adequate to tteal with the inquiries. . Mr Samuel (Thames) ; The High Commissioner gets £9OO house allowance and £I,OOO entertainment allowance. v _ r ., ’ Mr Jordan replied that the High Commissioner was _ paying more than His allowance for his house. “I am going to talk about the High Commissioner, hut am not going to shed about his £1,575 a year or his house allowance of £900,” said Mr Langstone (Waimarino). “The whole outfit eo§ts_ us £20,758. I am more concerned with people here who are without food than with someone overseas hobnobbing with Nabobs in silver-tailed coats.” Mr Hargest (Invercargill) pointed out that the High Commissioner s Office cost £24,000 for maintenance last year, conipared’ - with £20,000 in 1916. i\Vhen the war was on the expenses .were much greater. The figures quoted as to the Commissioner’s allowances had not taken into consideration two visits to Geneva, which had cost £1,610. He admitted that the salary for the position was inadequate, but he did urge that expenses he kept down. Replying to the discussion, Mr Young ' (Minister of Internal Affairs) said that, in addition to salary of £1,575 and his house allowance of £9OO, the High Commissioner was allowed mp to £2OO per annum for official entertainments, of which he spent £129 last year. As to the question of the adequacy of-his salary, there were various views on the subject, and he had. noted them for presentation to the Government. " .