Mr Holland Opposes Government Rush: Pensions For M.P.’s

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 November 1947, Page 5

Mr Holland Opposes Government Rush: Pensions For M.P.’s

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, This Day. In the House of Representatives this morning, the Minister of Finance, Mr Nash, discussing those clauses .of the Superannuation Bill which provide for superannuation of members of the House of Resaid this part of the Bill was occasioned by the unanimous report presented to the House last year by a select committee of seven members representing both sides of the House, which had been asked to investigate the matter. The Bill provided for the first time in New Zealand’s history superannuation for members of the House. A sifnilar provision was made in other countries, including New South Wales and the United States. In the latter country the minimum qualifying period was six years. In New Zealand it would be nine. It would generally be agreed that for any person to give up his normal occupation to enter Parliament was a big step: There need not be too much talk of sacrifice;

“Personally, I enjoy being here,” said Mr Nash. “Most of us come here because we want to and some of us keep on coming whether we want to or not.” Provision For Widows

A significant fact, however, was that many members, on being defeated or retiring, were unable to earn as much money as they would then have been earning were it not for their parliamentary service. It was not desirable to restrict membership to those who could afford to come without pay and the logical conclusion was that if members were paid for their services they and their widows should receive some compensation for the break that came when the member’s term in the House came to an end. “I think there is no one more entitled to payment than the wife or widow of a member of Parliament,’ =aid Mr Nash. Members’ wives had to put up with many hardships and inconveniences. “No person thinking of the matter fully will deny the propriety of the relatively modest provisions for members in this part of the Bill, said Mr Nash.

Basis Of Case Mr Nash said the Bill _ made relatively generous provision for those who . interpreted the laws-»-magistrates —on a non -contributory basis. It was not unreasonable then, that those who made the laws should be given superannuation on a contributory basis. Each member would contribute approximately 10 per cent, of his honorarium and this contribution would go on throughout his membership of the House, even after he had completed the 15 years’ service required to derive the maximum benefit of £4OO a year. Mr Nash said he had seen members retire after 30 to 35 years’ service with no money at all. Parliament had had to make some Provision for them and then, if they died, then widows were left with nothing, ex cept the social security, benefit. In view of the sacrifices these women made in the deprivation and interruption of normal home life, that was not right. Opposition’s Attitude The Leader of the Opposition, Mt Holland, said he had advocated that some provision should , be made fo those who served their country m Parliament- so that when they tired they would not have to com , cap in hand, to the Government and accept something by way of a compassionate allowance, but by the introduction so late in the session of part five of the Bill covering superannuation for members Parlia Z ment he considered they had lost a good deal of public support on the principle of that part oi the Bil . Opposition could not concur in the passing of the Bill at this late ’ because the public had not had sufficient opportunity of examining its Pr Mr°Hoiland reiterated that he had always believed there should be some superannuation provision for members of Parliament. Every yeai compassionate grants had been made and he knew of cases where widows, and families of members had been too proud to apply for such grants. It should be realised that after 10 or 12 years’ service in Parliament, a member was not always qualified to Srve efficiently in, other employment, and this was the reason why so many former members of Parliament had been'appointed' ( to. various boards and organisations.'lt was only Parliament' which could pass such a law' as was’ contemplated and the method of passing it was a s important as the contents of the Bill itself. In his heart he believed, that when action was taken to raise the salaries

of members the right step was taken. Indeed, he knew of instances where members had lived three and four in a room because they could not afford proper and adequate accommodation, but whenever a law was passed relating to members ther»selves, they had to be a great deal more careful. Mr Holland said he had learnt a lesson which arose from the passing of the legislation to increase members’ salaries, and he had pledged himself to see that the utmost publicity should be given to legislation affecting members so that the public would judge. They (the members) had to be sure that they were not even unconsciously prejudiced by their own interests when dealing with the Bill; and they had to be sure there was no hole-and-corner business, no rushing, and nothing underhand.. Late Introduction

The position was that a Bill of 91 clauses was introduced at a late hour last night, and the second reading was being taken with urgency on the following morning, Sufficient publicity had not been given the Bill so that the public could have time to consider it. He was convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that had the proposal been properly explained to the people there would have been a wide measure of support from the public. Mr Holland said thinking people would agree that a scheme of superannuation for members of Parliament was desirable, but the public was condemning this Parliament for the methods it had employed in introducing the actual scheme, which had been proposed. “And I am bound to say that I agree with them, said Mr Holland. The Leader of the Opposition traversed the work of the committee, which had presented its report last year, and said he personally received only two objections from the whole of New Zealand following the committee’s report favouring superannuation. Members were entitled to interpret that lack of objection as indicating public approval for the principle of members’ superannuation, but to make sure the thing was done openly the National Party had included it in its election programme. Mr Holland said in earlier negotiations between the parties the National Party had suggested that the minimum rate at the age of 60, and after at least nine years’ service, should be £lB7 per year, with a maximum of £333.. These amounts, when the Social Security charge was deducted, would represent £3 6s 9d weekly and £5 18s 5d weekly, the latter to be the maximum after 15 years’ service. Return To Original

Later the Opposition “threw into the arena” for discussion the suggestion of a £250 minimum and £4OO maximum, -but later decided that was too much to expect the public to approve. The Opposition therefore favoured a return to the lower rates, which had been suggested. “If we adhere to our original ideas, I think it would be wise. I think the public would approve ol it, if ample time were given for consideration of it,” said Mr Holland. The debate was interrupted by the luncheon adjournment.