THE CIVIL LIST BILL

Southland Times, Issue 22969, 15 August 1936, Page 8

THE CIVIL LIST BILL

’ MEASURE PASSED PROVISION FOR UNDERSECRETARIES HIGHER COST OPPOSED (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington. August 14. The Civil List Amendment Bill, which provides for the appointment of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries as assistants to Ministers, and also authorizes the payment of an additional Minister without any increase in the total salary vote for Cabinet, was put through its remaining stages and passed in the House of Representatives to-day. The second reading was taken last week, and the Bill was resumed in the committee stages to-day, being passed without amendment after about three hours of discussion. “Just what is in the mind of the Government about this measure ?” asked Mi- W. J. Polson (Nat., Stratford). “Is the country going to be flooded with Under-Secretaries? It would be a horrible thought. The obvious intention of the Government is to see that money is spent, so the Prime Minister might as well let us know his intentions under this Bill. It is possible that every member of the Government party might be an Under-Secretary.” The Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr J. A. Lee): Do you think a Minister is going to have the Dionne quintuplets with him or something like that? Mr Polson: I can’t imagine the Prime Minister having anything of that kind anyway.

Mr S. G. Smith (Nat., New Plymouth) said that the members of the Labour Party, when in Opposition, had objected to members of the Legislative Council being given official positions, yet that very principle was contained in the Bill. The Government had turned a “double political flip.” Replying to the suggestion made by Mr H. S. S. Kyle (Nat., Riccarton), about the pooling of salaries and its effect on the income tax, the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) said that he thought Mr Kyle’s remarks were unfair. A Reduced Salary. “I will get between £BOO and £9OO less this year than if I had never entered into this arrangement,” said Mr Savage, “and it is unfair to suggest that there is anything to exempt me from the income tax. I will pay the amount of the income tax that the law stipulates, because I do not ask for more than to be treated as an ordinary citizen.”

Mr Savage said that the Government wanted to see the peoples’ representatives running the country, instead of irresponsible boards. If it so happened that there was a member of the Opposition who could do the job, he did not see why he should not have his expenses paid to do it. The Leader of the Opposition (the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) suggested that some limited number of Under-Sec-retaries should be provided for. For instance, why not provide for the appointment of four. Mr Savage: That is about the number we will appoint right away. Mr J. Hargest (Nat., Awarua), said that the cost of Government in New Zealand had always been expensive, and now it was getting out of all reason. In the eyes of people overseas it was becoming an absurdity. Mr A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskill) said that members of the Opposition were basing their arguments on the assumption that every Minister would have his Under-Secretary. The Government had already saved the country thousands of pounds by abolishing seven boards. Mr Polson: You set up a whole lot of others in their place. Amendment Lost. An amendment moved by Mr Kyle designed to prevent the appointment of members of the Legislative Council as Under-Secretaries was defeated on a division by 40 votes to 13. Mr Polson said that the amount of emolument that an Under-Secretary could receive under the Bill involved a salary of £6OO, a house allowance of £2OO and £2 2/- a day in travelling allowances. It was wrong that an ordinary member of Parliament who was not a Minister should be permitted to receive such a sum. Mr W. P. Endean (Nat., Parnell) said that the vote for the Legislative Department had taken a huge jump of more than £31,000. The expense did not stop at the salaries of Under-Sec-retaries, as there would be office accommodation, secretarial assistance and other consideration. The Bill was read a third time and passed.