MEMBERS' SALARIES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20870, 9 November 1929, Page 14

MEMBERS' SALARIES.

"CHRISTMAS BOX” VOTED. SPECIAL GRANT FOR CURRENT YEAR. SOME OPPOSITION TO PROPOSAL (Froji Odr Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, November 8, Members of the House of Representatives to-day voted themselves a little “ Christmas box ” in the shape of a special allowance for the current year of £IOO, thus bringing the honorarium for the period up to £550. There was some opposition, to the proposal, but it was carried without a division. One of the objectors, Mr E, A. Wright '(Reform member for Wellington Suburbs), declared that he would not accept the additional money. Provision for the allowance was contained in the final clause of the Appropriation Bill, and in moving the second reading of the measure the Acting Leader of the House (Mr G. W. Forbes) said the proposal was in conformity with a promise the Prime Minister had given a deputation from the three parties in the House, which had placed before him the financial difficulties of members. That deputation had pointed, out the severe financial strain on the resources of members after an expensive election, and the expense of maintaining two homes during the session. In addition, as members realised, those members of Parliament who represent country constituencies were faced with considerable travelling expenses, and when times were hard all members experienced additional calls on their resources. Members were looked upon as a sort of fountainhead of a charitable dole. Mr Forbes said he had always believed that members’ honoraria were not sufficient, and during the election campaign he had stated very definitely that the time had arrived when an increase should be made. New members who, during the election, had expressed the opinion that the remuneration was adequate, now had a different opinion, having experienced the calls made. The present Prime Minister had always been sympathetic, and the proposal to make the special allowance of £IOO for the current year to supplement the salary of members was in recognition of the heavy claims made on the resources of members. He considered the Government was thoroughly justified in meeting what was a reasonable demand. It should have no hesitation in placing the matter on a satisfactory footing. The question of superannuation for members had been raised, but there. were difficulties in the way of inaugurating a scheme of that nature Superannuation for members was, however, required, as rases were frequently met of men who, having givm the best years of their lives in the service of their .country, were left to experience want in their retiring years through being unable to devote any time to private business. That was a reproach on the parliamentary system. The whole system required going into, so that the remuneration would be placed on a reasonable basis, and the time had arrived to do that now. There was no time this session, however, to go into the matter of superannuation, but the Government had , mot the position to the extent of making the special allowance for the present year. He was sure the action of the Government would bo approved by the people of New Zealand. , ’ "I think this is-a most ill-timed arid ill-considered proposal,” declared Mr J. S.-Fletcher (United member for Grey Lynn). “We have this session enacted special legislation in order to balance the Budget and the question is not whether members deserve an increase in salary or not, but whether the time is opportune in view of the way we have acted right through the session. We have refused the civil servants an increase because the finances would not stand it, yet we propose to give ourselves an extra £IOO. The proposal is ill-timed and ill-considered and I must protest against it. Mr R. A. Wright (Reform member for Wellington Suburbs) said that those members who had stated on the hustings that they were in favour of an increase were entitled to support the clause, but not otherwise. He-ventured to say that a considerable number had not mentioned the matter during the election campaign. The Minister of Justice (Mr T. M. Wilford): Very many did. Mr Wright: I know the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Justice stated that members were under-paid. Their constituents know where they stand, but I venture to say that there are many not in that position. I did not agree to an increase and I must vote against the clause. Mr Wilford; If it is passed will you take it?—(Laughter.) Mr Wright (emphatically) ; I will not. The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) said he would support the clause. He realised that the question had- not been made an election issue, but he had made the position of his party perfectly clear and had received the unanimous endorsement of his constituents. The present allowance did not represent a laliourer’s wage. “ I am satisfied the people of New Zealand do not .want members who are doin'* important work to be placed in a position where they do not know where to turn and where their wives are hard put to it to meet the monthly bill,” he said. Those of ns who fight week in and week out for improvements for others are entitled to seek improvements in our own conditions.”—(“Hear! hear!”} Mr Holland added that the Labour Party had a mandate from the people on the question and would support the clause. The Minister of Education (Mr H, Atmore) said that as one who had taken a very prominent part for some years m the attempt to get better conditions for private members of Parliament he did not intend to go back on his attitude now that he held a portfolio. He thought the people of New Zealand were of opinion that the workers in the parliamentary vineyard were entitled to fair play. A private member should not be asked to maintain himself in Wellington and his familv in his own town on the present allowance. He was quite sure the people would not look askance, at the Government/s action. For years, although .75 per cent, of the members had been in favour of an increase nothing had been done. Courage was all that was wanted. Parliament was composed of sober men. No member sc> , ar as h® knew wasted money on drink, and it had been the general experience that it was impossible to maintain two houses—a matter of necessity in many cases—on the present allowance. He welcomed the action of the Government, but it would be incomplete until an adequate honorarium was '‘hen and, in addition, superannuation. *That had to come. If a man aspired to the position of a professional politician and there was no stigma attached to that office, he should be given an adequate salary. The people of New Zealand did not believe in low wages. The Minister of Justice (Mr T. M. ilford) said the clause did not apply to Ministers, and therefore be and other members of the Cibiuet could speak with an open mind. Members of Parliament, in his opinion, were inadequately paid. He realised that they did not receive a living wage, especiallv ii they had to keep two homes. It was

a stigma on the House that the salary had not been raised long ago. “ I am in this position, and I want to be perfectly frank about it,” said the the Leader of the Opposition (Mr J. G. Coates). “Prior to the election I said I was in favour of an increase, but I also took up the attitude that while I agreed entirely with an increase in members’ salaries, there should be some increase in the lower paid grades of the civil service. Having said that I must stand by it. I have to retain what I consider to be a personal honour.” Mr Wilford: Do you think the allowance is warranted ? Mr Coates: I think the question of the civil servants’ salaries can be considered at once in view of the figures given to the House. Mr R. Semple (Labour member for Wellington East); Why didn’t you vote for our resolution the other night? Mr Coates: It was just a question of whether your party should occupy the benches or hot. A Labour member (facetiously): It was just a question was it? Mr Coates: I think we took the right and proper course on that occasion. I may be called inconsistent and regarded as anything but popular by my colleagues, but I believe I am doing the right thing in not agreeing to the increase. It was stated by Mr W. E. Parry (Labour member for Auckland Central) that Mr Harris (Reform), Mr S. G. Smith (Government), and himself had been deputed by their respective parties to ascertain whether there was unanimity on the question. Everything had been done in a manly and straightforward way, and Mr Parry called, on all members to share the vesponbility and not leave the Acting Leader of the House to shoulder it alone. " I will accept the increase, and my hand will not shake when I take it either,” added Mr Parry. " I believe I earn it, and the people I represent believe I earn it, and will congratulate me on the increase.” Mr A. M. Samuel (Reform member for Thames) said he was not entirely dependent on the honorarium otherwise he. wotild be in a sorry condition. He considered the increase was justified. There had been no thought of a division, aijd be considered ■ there had been a breaking of faith /on the part of some members in the attitude they had taken up. At the suggestion of Mr Savage the debate on the second reading was concluded to enable the House to go into committee on the clauses. The clauses were speedily endorsed until the one dealing with salary increases was reached. A division was called for, but the clause was retained on the voices.