WOMEN TEACHERS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 13 September 1924, Page 5

WOMEN TEACHERS.

THE SALARY QUESTION

CONTENTION BY MR HOLLAND

IBY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ABBOCIA!P»ON,} WELLINGTON, Sept. 12. The question of the pay of women teachers was raised in the House today during the discussion on the education vote, when Mr H. E. Holland (leader of the Labour Party) contended that women teachers should he paid at the same rate as men for equal work, and he moved a reduction of the total vote by £1 as an indication that women should receive equal pay to men for equal work. The Minister (Hon. C. J. Parr) said he was in receipt of representations on this subject from, the women teachers, and lie had replied that these representations must, come to him through the Educational Institute. In no part of the world, so far as he was aware, was there an education system under which women' teachers received the same pay as men. He considered) no women teachers in any country were so well paid as in New Zealand. There were 2600 women teachers, most of whom were single without responsibilities, and they were receiving salaries ranging from £5 to £9 weekly, and quite a number of single women in charge of infant schools received £4OO annually. To bring their salaries up to the level of the men would absorb another £400;000. Mr Holland asked if the Minister did not think women were doing equal work.

Mr Parr replied that that was not his contention, but that the family responsibilities of me.n should be recognised. It was a question whether it paid the State to encourage women teachers. It cost something like £3OO to train them, and then just as they were becoming useful teachers they got married or left for some purpose of their own, and that was. an economic loss to the State. Mr Holland said that so far as 1 the family aspect of the case was concerned _he was prepared to join with the Minister to fix a basic wage for teachers, with the addition of a family allowance, for both men and women. The Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill') said that on the abstract question of equal pay for equal work he did not see how it could be evaded, and he thought the Minister should recognise it. Mr R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs! said he could not see how they could escape from recognising that the basic salary attaching to any certain position. should be paid to whomsoever carried it out. This did not mean that the married should not get an additional allowance on account of family resnonsibilities.

The Minister said Mr Holland had stated that he would make an allowance for married men, but his motion ienored this allowance. Would Mr Holland consider, say, £IOO per annum a fair allowance to male teachers above the amount naid to women, because that was the'effect of the present scale of pay. Single men teachers must receive something more than single women, as the former have to be enabled to make provision for establishing homes for themselves. Mi’ S. G. Smith (Taranaki) complained of the involved nature of the ores, ent scale of payment, which made it difficult for teachers to work out their salaries. The Minister had too much power to alter salaries, which were out of the hands of Parliament, which ought to control them. He supported the amendment.

The Minister pointed out that the present scale was ~ not unfair to permanent women teachers, abou# 1900 in number. o.f these over 50 per cent received from £250 to £3OO per annum, and the low’est paid, 6 per cent of the total, received £IBO. or*£3 10s w’eeklv. After further dehate Mr Holland’s amendment was defeated by 29 votes to 27.