SALARY INCREASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22100, 2 November 1933, Page 10

SALARY INCREASE

COMMONWEALTH MEMBERS A STORM OF PROTEST. (From Odr Own Correspondent.i , • SYDNEY, October 20. The storm of protest which followed the decision of the .House of Representatives to increase the salary of members from £750 a year to £825 was almost unprecedented, in the political history of Australia. Almost without exception the press of the Commonwealth condemned what it was pleased.to call the “salary grab.” The Sydney Morning Herald said: “ Eveerybody who voted for the increase is discredited, and the Commonwealth as a whole has a feeling that it has been betrayed. . . . Surely members of Parliament at Canberra could have endured for a .while longer their own burden of reduced salaries when sot many of their constituents all over Australia are in a wilderness of hardship in making ends meet.” Other writers were not so kind, and one likened the action of the House as a thief in the night. | The reference to a thief in the night had to do with the maner in which the increase was decided upon. There had had been no talk of increasing the pay of members —that is to say, no open talk. It was at the height of an all-night sitting on the “ recovery ” Budget that several members got together and decided that the time had arrived when they should share in the \ improved finances of the Commonwealth. , Even the most ardent supporters of the increase were surprised at the reception that was accorded td their proposals. Backed by the opinion of their, fallows they needed little inducement, to go further. They aproached the Prime Minister (Mr J. A. Lyons),:and ap-. patently found him sympathetic, for within a few hours the necesary motion was put forward. It is a matter of history now that the motion was carried by an overwhelming majority—44 to 16. The opponents were drawn from the re-, presentatives of the small States—Tasmania, South Australia, and . Western Australia—all of whom' hold that if the Government has' any money to spare it should be devoted to the relief of those States which have suffered most disabilities as a result of Federa-j tion. ~ ' " ; ' >

The attitude of the Government was that the matter of salaries should bo left to the members themselves. The view generally taken is that the Prime Minister made a grave error in permitting dictation, and it goes without saying that had he resisted the claim he would have renewed his popularity which, if the truth" must be told, is slightly on the wane. Mr Lyons said that under the Budget something had been done for every section of the community, and members were entitled to the proposed restoration. Mr Lyons showed that he was out of touch with public opinion when he said he was sure the public would; approve of what was being done. It is true that the amount involved was little more than £SOOO for the remainder of the financial year, but it is not the amount that is objected to so much as the principles involved and the manner in which the readjustment was made.

There were remarkable scenes in the House before the vote was taken, the opponents being particularly bitter. There were protests about the procedure that was being adopted, and the Speaker found it his duty to warn several members who failed to see any justification for the increase. Others pleaded that the cost of living at Canberra made it essential that members should have their salaries increased, some of them asserting that board in Canberra alone was £5 a week. Mr M. Gabb, from South Australia, was practically refused a hearing, and when ho was able to speak he said that he was elected on £BOO a year, and he would not take a penny more. The proposal was being pushed through in a manner that would “ stink in the nostrils of the people.” In the midst of bitter personal attacks there were scenes of grave disorder.

The Premier of South Australia (Mr Butler) said that the Federal Government had set a “tragic and deplorable” example to the rest of the Commonwealth. In all States meetings of the Taxpayers’"Associations were called, and the decision of Parliament was condemned in no uncertain terras. Scores of telegrams from all manner of organisations were forwarded to the Prime Minister. On all sides it was held that the increase could not have been more inopportune. It was regarded as inconceivable that any body of men who had preached the gospel of sacrifice should so “ plunder ” the community. As a matter of fact Labour organisations alone seem to have held themselves aloof from the controversy. It is. ironical that supporters of Mr Lang in the Federal Parliament should have decided to accept the increase and pay it into a Labour fighting-fund in readiness for the next Federal election.