LABOUR AND MEMBERS' SALARIES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19144, 9 October 1925, Page 7

LABOUR AND MEMBERS' SALARIES

Sir, —In one of your recent issues I notice that at Mr/Jordan's address at Onehunga and in his speeches generally, he states that large sums of money are spent by the Reform Party. I and a good many more people would like to know what about the money spent by the Labour Party in the Franklin byelection, and this, in spite of the fact that it had not the slightest chance of winning. Why did Mr. Jordan not suggest that this money be used to assist the poor? This cry of helping the poor by Labour Socialist members makes one sick, and certainly is not borne out by facts. Wherever "Labour has got into power it has exploited the workers. Take for instance, thg New South Wales Labour Socialist Party Mr. Dooley set the fashion of helping himself to the "Sweets of Office." One of the first acts of the Dooley Ministry was to increase members' salaries by £375 per annum. Mr. Dooley's personal emolument jumped from £IB7O to' £2445 per annum, and his travelling allowance from £2 2s to £3 3s per day. When the Nationalists turned the Dooleyists out they reduced members' salaries to £6OO and those of Ministers in proportion Mr. Lang, the new State Premier, however, continues the spoils to the victor policy. Ministers' and members' salaries have returned to the Dooley level, and high offices of the Fuller administration have been compelled to make way for the proteges of Labour. Two men, one the Director of Finance, resigned under pressure, a third, Sir Arthur Cocks, the State AgentGeneral, was marked down. He could not be summarily dismissed because he had the forethought to secure a live years contract. Instead. Mr. Lang froze him out. Again, when Mr. Dooley became Premier, "the expenditure, which was £23.233,397 the previous year, was increased in 1919 20 to £34.488,166, and for the year 1920-21 to £36,803,000. The salaries and allowances of Mr. Dooley and his Ministers and supporters were increased by £42-810 per annum, and the cost of Parliament by some £70.000 per annum, exclusive of allowances, and this at a time when economy was imperatively needed in the interests of the taxpayers. I think I have brought sufficient facts to 'light to indicate that the question' of Labour passing its party fighting funds over to the poor is quite a fallacious one, and is a straight-out electioneering dodge, used only for the pi.rpose of catching sympathy votes. There is no doubt that the Labour Party is using party funds, and that v6ry freely. Manukas Electo*.