ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE

Taranaki Daily News, 21 December 1933, Page 7

ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

FINANCE BILL CLAUSE DISCUSSED.

CRITICISM BY COALITION WHIP.

INCREASE OF £l6O DECIDED UPONBy Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Dec. 20. Speaking on the clause in the Finance Bill (No. 2) granting an additional allowance of £l6O per annum to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. A. J. Murdoch (Coalition, Marsden) stated in the House in the early hours this morning that he believed the time was not opportune for extending to any member of Parliament more money than he was now receiving, and there should be no extension until such time as the public servants’ salaries could be increased.

He agreed that members of Parliament were not receiving a sum commensurate with the amount of work they had to do, and he also considered that the Leader of the Opposition was entitled to a sum sufficient to pay his expenses throughout the year; but he repeated that the time was inopportune. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central) pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition himself would not obtain one penny piece of the additional allowance, which, together with the sessional allowance, would cover a portion of the secretarial expenses attached to his onerous duties. Even the ordinary member of Parliament had sufficient correspondence to require the services of a typiste, and the work of the Leader of the Opposition was much heavier than that of the ordinary member. It required secretarial assistance all the year round. “MEMBERS UNDERPAID.” Mr. R. Semple (Labour, Wellington East) expressed the opinion that the amount provided in the Bill was altogether inadequate. “As for the honorariums of members,” he said, “the time will come when members will be courageous enough to tell New Zealand that they are underpaid.” Mr. F, Lye (Coalition, Waikato) congratulated the Government on what he described as long overdue recognition of the legitimate claims of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr; W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) said he would rather have seen the clause deleted than brought up in the manner in which it had.

Mr. M. J. Savage (Leader of toe Opposition): “Yes, so would I." ' Mr. Coates: “We will not take it out.” Mr. Savage: “I would rather see it kicked out.”

Mr. Coates said that no arrangement had been made with Mr. Savage. The Government had brought toe clause down because it considered it legitimate and justified, and it intended to pass it. Mr. W. J. Jordan (Labour, Manukau): “Then why did the Chief Whip oppose it ?” .

Mr. Coates: “Please don’t take it that way, I know that one member had an individual view, but he did not intend it to be personal or nasty.”

Mr. Murdoch assured the House that there had been no spleen in his remarks. The clause was passed amidst a loud chorus of “Ayes.”