MR. FURKERT'S FEE

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 126, 24 November 1932, Page 11

MR. FURKERT'S FEE

PROTEST FROM LABOUR

AMENDMENT DEFEATED

KR. COATES M DEFENCE

Protests against the. appointment of the ex-Engineer-in-Chief of the Public ■Works Department (Mr. F.. W. Furkert) to an-advisory capacity in the Department at a fee of £250 were voiced in' the House of Eepresentatives last night when the Public Works Estimates were under consideration. A hostile amendment moved from the Labour benches was: defeated by 31 votes to 25. The Labour -Party: had the support of Vtho Independent members of the House and four Government members—-Messrs. H.: S. S. .Kyle (Eiccarton), D. McDougall (Mataura), A. M. Samuel (Thames), and K. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs). ;.."■ - . • :

Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) said that the House was entitled to the fullest information on the suggestion that ,the services of the ex-Engineer-in-Chief of the Public Works Department were being retained* It was not the first time this procedure had been followed, and they wanted to know how long it was to continue. Before the second salary cut the engineer had been "receiving £.1718 per annum, and after the cut his salary had been £1503 per annum. It was stated that he was to letiro on £.1300 a year, and now he was to receive an additional £250.yearly, which would make up the amount he was enjoying prior to his re"tirement. It was an extraordinary position. Apparently another engineer had been appointed in . his place, and surely the new man was equally capable of carrying out the duties of the position; Ylf he was not worthy of the job, why had he been appointed? Considerable objection had been raised against the action of the Government, and they wanted to know how far it was intended to go with the, policy.

In reply, the Minister of Public "Works (the Eight Hon., J. G, Coates) said that he could not say what superannuation the retiring Engineer-in-Chief was to .receive, but he had been engaged in. a consulting and advisory capacity because hia services were considered most valuable in connection with the construction work at Arapuni and "Waitaki and certain harbour works which were being carried out. His advice was also of great value in connection with inquiries which were proceeding. Mr. Coates said that he knew there-had-been objections to the appointment ■by a section of the public and in the Press, but lie had considered it his" duty to make the recommendation :in view of the problems which were being faced. If the engineer had been paid the normal fee for the work he was doing the cost to the Government would have been much greater. ; ;He ebuld assure the House that the,'money was being well spent.

Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Government, Bicearton) asked what was the reason for retiring Mr. Furkert, who, he , understood, had several years of service to run. : Yet he was retired and was given a retaining fee practically for life. He took it that the other officers were highly qualified. Mr.' Kyle said that at the last General Election he had given certain promis.es from the platform in connection with matters of this kind. . He did not believe in retiring a gentleman when he had years of service before^him. .

Mr. H. Atmore (Independent, Nelson) said ho opposed the payment, which, in the present state of affairs, was not justified.

Mr. E. McKeen (Labour, Wellington South) asked the Minister what -were the reasons for the payment of the £250. He^ knew Mr. Furkert had been a very goqd officer. A similar thing had been done; in regard to the former Director-General of" Health, and it seemed that if retaining fees were not paid the men were retired on superannuation and appointed to other lucra.tive positions. '

Mr: Parry said the L , principle embodied in the payment was absolutely wrong. He thought the House should give a decided opinion on the matter. He moved an amendment that the vote be reduced by &5 as an indication that the House ■ disapproved of ' the retaining fee of £250."

The Chairman of Committees (Mr. S. G. Smith): It is out or order;'there is do .retaining fee ■on these Estimates.

Mr. Parry said he would move that the vote be reduced by £5 as a protest against the appointment.

Mr. A. M: Samuel (Government, Thames) said he /was against the principle of superannuated officers holding any paid positions with the Government. -If Ms successor was not fully qualified for the position; then someone with better qualifications should be appointed. He was of opinion, that the successor to-Mr. Furkcrt was eminentljcapable. The amendment was defeated by 31 votes to 25. The division list was as follows:— Ayes (25). Armstrong W. Nash. Atmore \ •■ O'Brien Barnard Parry Carr Kichards Chapman Rushworth Howard Samuel Jones Savage Kyle - . ' .. . . Sehramm MeCombs " v Semple McDougall Sullivan McKeen Wilkinson Mason • ■ ... ■ Wright' Munro . ' Xoes (31). Ansell Jull Bitchener Linklater Bodkin Lye Burnett lieLeod Clinkard ' Macmillan Coates Maepherson. Cobbe ;... ■, Murdoch de la Perrell'e • J. A. Nash\ Dickie' Ngata x Endean ■ . Ransom Field . Heid Forbes ' Sj-kes Hamilton , Teitch ■ ' Hawko ' Williams Tfo=Ur- Young Hcnarc