PAY OF LEGISLATORS

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 277, 27 October 1925, Page 2

PAY OF LEGISLATORS

NEW SOUTH WALES INCREASE. DEBATE ON THE MEASURE. The bill providing for the increase in salaries of members of Parliament from £6OO to £875, introduced by the New South Wales Labour Government, and which has been passed by the Legislative Assembly, gave rise to an interesting debate when the second reading was moved by tho AttorneyGeneral, Mr E. A. McTiernan. The Attorney-General said the object of tho bill was to restore the salaries of , members and Ministers to tho amounts determined as reasonably adequate by Judge Edmunds, of the Arbitration Court, who sat as a commission of inquiry into the matter. Some months prior to the reference to Judgs Edmunds, a bill was introduced by tho Prime Minister to increase the salaries of members and Ministers of the Federal Parliament by a substantial amount. The increase to members was from £6OO to £IOOO. That bill was passed by a majority of 35 votes. Mr Fitzpatrick: You don’t mean to say the cases are analogous. In the Federal Parliament members have to travel from North Queensland to Melbourne.

The Attorney-General said it became the duty of the State Government to review their salaries. The Government recognised that it was faced with some difficulty and some delicacy, and they sought the assistance and counsel of an able, experienced and impartial arbitrator, the Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court.

WHAT THE JUDGE DECIDED. Mr McTiernan said that is was impossible to make a mathematical calculation of what would bo regarded as a reasonable remuneration, but Judge Edmunds applied his knowlergo and experience to the problem, and decided that £875 was a fair and reasonable remuneration. When the Commonwealth was founded, the constitution provided for the payment of £4OO per annum to members of the Federal Parliament. The. allowance provided by the State law was £3OO. In 1907 the Federal Parliament raised tho allowance to £6OO, and in 1912 the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales raised the allowance from £3OO to £SOO, so that there had been a difference of £IOO in the salaries payable to members of the Federal Parliament and the Parliament of the State. The figures recommended by Judbe Edmunds were adopted, but when the Nationalist Government was returned to office, it capriciously and without inquiry reduced the. salaries. Mr "Fitzpatrick -: Wo promised our constituents to do so. Mr McTiernan: When that bill for the reduction of tho salaries was before the House, the Labour Party resisted it on every occasion, and was not ashamed to show publicly what was its attitude on the question. The electors knew what was the attitude of Labour members and, this notwithstanding, tho Labour Party triumphed at the polls. Those who have so strenuously oposed the motion for leave to introduce the bill wore men, to some degree, of economic independence. L •’ 1

Concluding, Mr McTiernan said that th© matter was before the electors at th© last elections. It was mentioned by many members during tho campaign. It was said by almost every Nationalist candidate that if the Labour Party were returned they would increase their salaries.

OPPOSITION LEADER’S VIEWS. Tho Leader of tho Opposition, Mr T. R. Bavin, said there was only ono real issue in this matter. It was not whether members should be paid—personally he had always favoured payment of members —not whether the amount fixed was adequate or inadequate, but whether this was the proper way to make the change if thought desirable. Tho perfectly honourable way was for the Premier, Mr Lang, to have taken the electors into his confidence. Then there would have been no difficulty. The argument of the At-torney-General, that tlie subject had been mentioned from platforms, was childish. It was pever mentioned in Mr Lang’s policy speech.

Mr Lang had said that no more and no less measures than those outlined in his policy, speech would bo dealt with, continued Mr Bavin, and he asked tho people to judge him on that. Mr Lang’s own words had precluded his giving effect to this bill. The members were in tho position- of trustees of the public funds. By -law trustees could not fix their own remuneration; therefore, they should not fix their own allowance. What was more degrading than that-they should ask one of their own employees, even though ho was a Judge, to say what they should be paid ! J Tho standards of public honour should bo higher than those of anyone else. If they were going to retain the dignity of Parliament they must retain those high standards.

Mr Bavin said that a feature that was unique in tho bill was tho proposal to make the payment retrospective to July 1. If tho House would make tho salaries apply only to the next Parliament he would support it, even though he thought that £875 was too much. He still held that there should be a difference between the amounts paid to country and metropolitan members. Country members had to establish two homes, and should be -recompensed in some way.

“A LOT OF HOG-WASH TALK.” Mp Missingham said that he would gladly support ail amendment to the effect that every man who voted 'against the bill should not lift the increase. Then they would get a true expression of the morality of the men wild were now opposing it. He had spoken to more than half the members whose names were in the division list on the motion for leave to introduce the bill, and they stated that they must have more money. Indeed, they had been canvassing members of the House, and had asked members of the Progressive Party how they were going to vote on the question. They squealed about morality; but they had none. They squealed to make the public believe that they were opposed to the measure, but all the time in their hearts they were hoping* it would go through. Mr Kay said that there had been a lot of “hog-wash” talk from the Opposition about public moraltiy, honesty and sincerity, and that tli© electors would not endorse the salary “grab.” If the members of the Opposition were worth £6OO the others were worth £IOOO. He now intended to vote for the increase, because those who paid him to combat Communism had cut away the payment, and the increased amounts would allow him to carry on this work.

Mr Stuart-Robinson said that the allowance must be looked upion as a

salary, because no Labour member was supposed to have two jobs. He regretted that there were not a few more in the House who might be'termed professional politicians. He told his electors that ho would endeavour to have members’ salaries raised to £IOOO.