“MISERABLE PITTANCE”

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 940, 5 April 1930, Page 6

“MISERABLE PITTANCE”

SALARIES OF M.P.’S MR. LEE MARTIN WANTS MORE From Our Oven Correspondent HAMILTON, Friday. The opinion that the salary of members of Parliament was a ' miserable pittance” was expressed by Mr. W. Lee Martin, at the conference of the Waikato Farmers' Union today, in answering criticism that the salaries were too high and called for economy. A remit was tabled strongly opposing the suggested increasing of members’ salaries. Mr. R. H. Feasst, of Cambridge, j said a further increase was wrong In j principle. It led to rises being sought j by each department and by industries, j The thing never ended and was virtu- j ally a vicious circle. Members of j Parliament were indulging in too i much expenditure. One of the cus- j toms which should be abolished was that in which members were expected | to make donations to every little i society. It amounted to political bribery. Mr. Lee Martin said be understood there w r as a movement on foot to in- J crease members’ salaries. It seemed to him that the remit was a trivial thing which should never have found its way to the order paper. It would be better if the conference had sought to increase the salaries and get men worth while. A Voice: How do you get them? Mr. Lee Martin: You can’t get them when you pay them a miserable pittance. He added that his money did not go to donations and while there had not been many requests for them lately those who had applied had been iu- ! formed that his money was going to I the unemployed. It was impossible I for an M.P. to live on £450 a year. | Even a Minister’s secretary was paid I more than an M.P. He believed the 1 electors were getting legislation eom- : parable with the expenditure ‘on 1 salaries. “If the matter comes up before the House you can rest assured I will vote for an increase,” he concluded. Mr. T. H. Henderson, the president, supported Mr. Lee Martin’s remarks but considered an increase from £450 to £7OO was excessive. Mr. S. N. Ziman said the remit did not refer to any bonuses Parliament might vote but to a permanent increase in salary. Mr. Lee Martin said that Mr. Coates when in power had promised a permanent increase in salary. In fhet, I a superannuation fund had been sugI gested for members who were unseated after a number of years and found it difficult to recover thir former source of income. There was, he added, a suggestion to increase members’ salaries to meet sessional expenses and to provide a superannuation fund and the greater portion of any increase would be devoted to the latter. He believed the actuary had a scheme prepared, but any scheme would require to be on a sound basis and a substantial amount would have to be provided each year for the fund. Apart from the question of superannuation, Mr. Martin stated that in his opinion an increase in salary was justified. The remit was carried unanimously.