ALLEGED EXTRAVAGANCE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 205, 22 April 1932, Page 5

ALLEGED EXTRAVAGANCE

("Post" Special Commissioner)

COST OF TRAVELLING huge sums expended BY " officers of state departments cuts suggest^d

WELLINGTON, Thursday. Charges of extravagant expenditure upon travelling allowances were levelled at State Departments in the House of Representatives this morn- . ing by Mr. R.. McKeen (LaboUr, Wellington South), who, with other Labour members maintained that such expensesjshould not be exempted from the cut, particularly as house and lod.gmg allowances were to be subject to reduction. An amendmentrwas m'oved seeking - to include superannuation>_allowance of over £300 a year" within the scope of salaries." Mr. McKeen said that those iii chabge of the Public Service had grown used to a system which was almost a scandal. Dux-ing the last financial year five departments had spend £109,371 in travelling expenseg and under the same heading Ministers had charged up £11,753. If a.Miriister took a taxi for a range of 180 miles he also charged travelling expenses and hotel allowance for the driver. Ministers had spent no less than £800 in xxiotor fares alone. Members of Cabinet Judges of the Supreme Court and the Arbitration Court, for whom pene:ls were not good enough, and for ; whoixx the Government had to provide fountain pens, had, together with-Magistx-ates, collected £11,630 in tra'-* velling expenses, Mr. McKeen continued. There was no doubt that mexn-" bers of Cabinet made good salariesout of their expenses. Travelling allowances o'f officers qf the Native Affairs Department would make a native stare in wonder, ne sa'd. Under land consolidation expenses, two officers were provided foiy yet the estimates showed in an explanatory note that travelling allowances and expenses were paid to 22 officers at a cost of £2,447. Four native land purchase officers received £1087 in .travelling expenses and allowances, an average of £271 each. One of the members of the staff of the Native Affairs Department had been dismissed and his successor had - received in travelling expenses nearljas much as the dismissed officer's salary. Surely, in a time when every-.. body was called upon by the Government to make sacrifices, reductic ; should be made, whether the money received by an officer was salary or not. Superanuitants Mr. McKeen also pointed out that superrannuitants had been exceptionally well treated. One nxan who was receiving £2000 a year in superannuation had been paid more in one year after his retirement than he had contributed iix all his years of service. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont) drew attention to the heavy trav.elling allowances in the Department of Agriculture. Some of the allowances appeared to he excessive, he said, and it seeined that the Economy Commission had overlooked them. Mr. W. Jordaxx (Labour, Manukau) said he would go as far as to say that members of Parliament should rer ceive allowances when they travelled through their electorates. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier), suggested that superannuation in excess of £300 should be regarded as salary and be subject to the cuts. He rnoved in that direction. The acting Chairman of Committees (Mr. J. A. Nash) ruled the amendnxent out as ixxvolving an appropriation. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central) thereupon rnoved that the Speaker's ruling be obtained. The point was diseussed at length after the Speaker. had resumed the chgir, and after hearing argument, Sir Charles Stathaxxx upheld the ruling of the acting Chairman of Committees. He pointed out that the amendment was out of order as far as it applied to superannuation, but was applicahle to retiring allowances. Mr. H. E. Holland (Leader of the Opposition) subsequently rnoved a proviso to limit travelling allowances to £1 a day. On a division being taken this was lost by 42 votes to 27 votes.