HIGHER SALARIES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20447, 27 October 1934, Page 27 (Supplement)

HIGHER SALARIES.

Two Unemployment Board

Members. LABOUR CRITICISM. (“ Star ” Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, October 26. The action of the Government in considerably increasing the salaries of two members of the Unemployment Board, Ms W. Bromley and Mr G. A. Pascoe, when nothing had been done to increase the wages of the unemployed was strongly resented by members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. As a protest Mr Fraser (Wellington Central) moved a reduction in the vote for the Unemployment Board on the Supplementary Estimates, and found an unexpected supporter in a Coalition member, Mr Kyle. The issue was forced to a division, when the Government’s proposals were confirmed by 29 votes to 23, Mr Kyle voting with Labour. ** It is well over the fence,” said the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Savage, who added that he was opposed to any increase in the salaries of board members at a time when the Government could not increase the wages of_ the unemployed. He asked the acting-Min-ister of Employment what the actual increase amounted to. The acting-Minister (the Hon J. A. Young) said that the salary of the deputy-chairman had been increased from £270 to £650. The administrative work of the board had increased to such an extent that it was essential that two members of the board, at least, should devote their whole time ot it. Daily Allowance. In reply to Mr Fraser, the Minister of Finance (Mr Coates) said that the deputy-chairman of the board had also been receiving an allowance of 10s per day. Mr Fraser: For 365 days that makes it £445. Mr Coates: That is about right. Mr Jordan (Manukau): Will he still get the allowance? Mr Young said that he would receive only travelling allowances when absent from Wellington. Mr Fraser said that another member of the board, Mr Pascoe, was to receive £6OO, and the third member was to receive £270. Mr Kyle: They can’t think much of him. Mr Fraser moved to reduce the vote by £395. He said that would leave Mr Bromley with the same salary, plus allowances, as he received last year, and would allow £4OO per annum for Mr Pascoe. The wages would at least be sufficient to live on. He was not casting any reflection on the ability of members of the board, but maintained that as long as men on relief were receiving inadequate payments no increases in salary should be made. A Contrast. Mr Howard (Christchurch South) said that the proposed increase in salaries of members of the board was in striking contrast to the treatment meted out to injured relief workers. At least one member of the board received £7OO or £BOO a year apart from what he got from the Unemployment Board, while an injured relief worker could merely participate in a total sum of £4OO a year, which was set aside for injured workers, of whom there were thirty-three cases a month. Mr Coates: An injured man got the compensation awarded by the Court, and we are making provision for ex gratia payments in these cases. Mr Howard: This is to come out of pennies collected from the children. The money should be taken from the Consolidated Fund. The whole thing is jolly unfair. One of Best Officers. Mr Kyle (Riccarton) asked for an explanation as to why one member of the Unemployment Board was to be paid £650 a year, another £6OO and a third £270. The board had lost one of its best officers, who had been stationed in Christchurch, and he wanted to say that that officer, Mr R. T. Bailey, had been practically forced to hand in his resignation. There was no more capable officer in Christchurch, and members had a good idea how that officer’s services were dispensed with. There was a remarkable disparity between £650 and £270, and he was beginning to wonder if the member who drew the low salary was required at all. It seemed that no sooner had members of the board accepted their positions at the amount stated in the Act than they obtained an increase. Mr Coates: Salaries were fixed three years ago. Mr Kyle: Yes, I know that, but we ; are not by any means out of the wood yet as far as unemployment is concerned. If they were willing to accept office three years ago at the stipulated remuneration I do not know why they should want an increase now. I have never been in favour of the board. We have got a Minister in charge of Unemployment, a Commissioner, a board and officers all over New Zealand. Hard Worked Men. While admitting that there was room for division of opinion as to whether unemployment should be dealt with by a board or directly by the Minister, Mr Coates said that there were no two harder worked men in New Zealand than the chairman (the Hon A. Hamilton) and the deputy-chairman. There was nothing more worrying and nothing that demanded more vitality than the' handling of unemployment, and he marvelled at the way in which the deputy-chairman had stood- up to the work. He was able and competent and there was no more suitable man in New Zealand. Mr Jordan: Does the board draw up the policy? Mr Coates: No. Mr Coates added that he could tell members of the Opposition that if they had the responsibility for dealing with unemployment they would quickly go for assistance. < Mr Kyle: But either do away with the board or a Commissioner. Worth Adequate Pay. Mr Coates: There is room for difference of opinion. Is it right to ask these men to give for nothing their time and energy to work which demands every ounce of their strength. If they do that then let them be paid adequately, and in view of the work they are doing they are not being paid C Mr Kvle: But whv the difference between £650 and £270. Mr Coates: One is part time and one is full time. Mr Armstrong: T think the one on £270 is on the best wicket.