SALARIES OF MEMBERS

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23976, 17 June 1943, Page 4

SALARIES OF MEMBERS

INCREASE SUGGESTED FUNCTIONS OF UPPER HOUSE DISCUSSED (P.A.) WELLINGTON, June 16. An increase of 50 per cent, in the salaries of members of Parliament was advocated by Mr H. G. Dickie (Opposition, Patea) in the Budget debate in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr Dickie also discussed the functions and constitution of the Legislative Council. Mr Dickie explained that he had been a member for 18 years, and was not seeking re-election: but during those 18 years several efforts had been made to raise the salaries of members. To-day it was a little more than £4OO a year, about half of what a watersider received, according to latest returns. One way in which it could be increased was by greatly reducing, if not abolishing, the Legislative Council, which, he thought, had become more or less a trade nmion secretaries’ club, and was top-heavy. The Council, he added, was a useless institution, and one of the planks of the Labour Party’s platform was the abolition of the Upper ; House. If they did not abolish it altogether, they should reduce its membership, and they should use the £20,000 it cost as a means of increasing the honoraria of members of the House. Mr Dickie suggested that the North and South Islands be divided into five electorates, each to elect a small legislative council of 10 members to do the work required of It. He considered that the present Legislative Council was not doing its job. Point of Order The Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) raised a point of order, asking if they were acting within the rules- of the House In criticising the members of another place. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) said it was not only the privilege but the duty of the House, when discussing the Budget, to discuss any item of expenditure. Mr Nash said he had not questioned the discussion of expenditure, but the comment on the capacity- of members of the Upper House. Mr J. A. Lee (Democratic SoldierLabour, Grey Lynn): Can we criticise Ministers in the other House? The Minister of Supply (the, Hon. D. G, Sullivan) said there were very seri■ous considerations involved in the point that had been raised. If it were ruled that members of the House could criticise members of the Council, and vice-versa. It would tend to bring Parliamentary institutions into disrepute, and perhaps contempt, Mr W. A. Bodkin, Opposition, Central Otago) said the member for Patea had referred to the personnel of the Council collectively, not individually, although he certainly would be entitled to do so because three of them occupied Ministerial rank, and could not be in the House to defend the expenditure to which they committed the country. Mr Speaker (the Hon. W. E. Barnard) gave a ruling on the point of order raised by Mr Nash. Mr Speaker said the standing orders stated that no member should use offensive or unbecoming words against the other House. It was in order for a member to criticise the Legislative Council as an institution, which might involve its usefulness. purpose, or constitution, but it would not be in order to reflect on individual members of the Council. The member for Patea had not referred to any particular member of the Council. Mr Speaker added that criticism of Ministers in the Council in respect of their administrative acts was also permissible. Mr Dickie said he did not seek to end the Legislative Council but to mend it. Mr E. P. Meachen (Government, Marlborough) also dealt with the constitution of the Legislative Council. He said that for many years the Labour Party had no i representation in the Council, but times had changed, and now there was a majority of Labour members on the Council. Consequently the National Party, which once thought the Council all right, now considered it all wrong. Personally he thought that the intellectual level of the Council had been raised by the Government’s appointments to it.