HIGH COMMISSIONER.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 February 1922, Page 3

HIGH COMMISSIONER.

’ PAY AND ALLOWANCES. INTERESTING DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT. EXTRA £lOOO QUESTIONED. The pay and allowances of the High Commissioner (Sir James Allen) and the organisation of the staff of his London office were discussed at considerable length in the course of the debate on the Supplementary Estimates on Saturday afternoon. On the Internal Affairs Department the Leadei of the Opposition called attention to the item “To Sir James Allen, towards expenses in securing and furnishing housing accommodation, £1000.” He understood, he said, that the High Commissioner received a salary which Parliament considered adequate, and had certain expenses allowed him, including £221 for himself and £ll3 for his private secretary for attending the League of Nations Assembly at Geneva, and extra expenses when he had to represent thb country at certain gatherings. Had the country got to furnish a house for the High Commissioner and find £lOOO tor it? It seined pretty hot if that was so. He moved to reduce the vote by £l9O. HIGH COST OF LIVING. The Prime Minister said that he had previously called attention to the enormous expense to which the High Commissioner was put under existing circumstances at Home. The cost or living for those who had to keep up a certain position, was at least three times what it was. Sir James Allen had told him that he could not afford to hold the position unless some provision for unexpectedly high expenses was made. He (the Prime Minister) had done his best to keep down the expenses, but he believed that if New Zealand was going to be adequately represented in London—and he was not looking forward to the position—we would have to increase the salary of the High Commissioner (now £2000). Mr. Witty said that he did not believe that Sir James Allen was looking after thei interests of the Dominion as he ought. There were too many men in the office at London who were not New Zealanders, and took no interest in New Zealand affairs; and proper attention was not given to people who went Home and to correspondence. He referred more particularly to people who had gone Home to see their sons’ graves and so on. “MATTER TO BE REMEDIED.” Mr. Massey agreed that there was not a sufficient number of New Zealanders in the High Commissioner’s office, and that that was a matter that would have to be remedied. Mr. Donne, who was head of the office, next to Sir James Allen, was a New Zealanaer, and so was Mr. Crowe.

Mr. Witty: Too lovjg away from here. Mr. Massey: Perhaps. He agreed that a continuous stream of New Zealanders should go Home every year to keep the office up to date on New Zealand affairs. Mr. T. W. Rhodes: Why not Tbave an interchange of staff? Mr. R. McCallum (Wairau) asked whose was the furniture to be after it was bought? Mr. Massey: The Government’!. “ADHERE TO CONTRACT.” Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) said that the Prime Minister had recently stated that the Government had a three years’ contract with the High Commissioner, so that his salary could not be reduced under the retrenchment scheme; but now it was proposed to give this £1000. ( He held that if there was a three years’ contract it should be adhered to. If this £lOOO was included in the contract it should be paid, but not otherwise. The whole position of the High Commissioner’s office should be reviewed. Mr. H. Atmore (Nelson) said that the post was worth a certain payment, and that payment should be given. The holding of the office should not depend upon a man being able to supplement his salary from his private income. The Prime Minister replied that he was convinced that something would have to be done to reorganise the whole position. Mr. Andrew Fisher received £5OOO a year on a five years’ engagement as High Commissioner for Australia. Mr. Howard: But he represents over five million people. Mr. Massey: But every Australian State has its Agent-General, receiving a salary equal to that of our High Commissioner. The extra payments to the High Commissioner, he added, amounted to £255; but one function given to 700 people at 7s 6d per head would take the whole of it. The cost of the High Commissioner’s Office was being reduced now. Its staff had doubled or trebled during the war; but now reductions—he could not say to what extent —were going on, and the reductions of public service salaries applied also to the High Commissioner’s office. “ORIENTAL SPLENDOUR ” Mr. Holland declared that the day was coming when we would have to recognise that all this entertainment flummery would have to be cut out. (“Oh! oh!” and laughter.) We did not want anybody living in Oriental splendour in London. (“Oh!” and laughter.) He did not believe that tne High Commissioner should be a glorified commission agent. (Laughter.) He did not agree that a man could not live, and live well, in London on £2OOO a year.

Mr. Massey: An individual could, but not a public man. Mr. Holland: The mistake Is that we think that the main part of the work of a public official is to entertain. One of the scandals of our public life, in New Zealand and outside, is the way in which a great deal of money is wasted on class functions. The working man got no chance to attend them. Mr. McCallum: Does he want to go to ihem ?

Mr. Holland: He has got, to pay for them; and all their gilded functions ought to be cut out. Whether sendoffs to the Prime Minister or to anybody else, they are absolutely unnecessary. The £5OOO paid to the Australian High Commissioner was, he declared, one of the scandals of Australian public life. He had always said so. He contrasted the treatment of the High Commissioner with that, for example, of the men who worked at the Otira tunnel. “£2OOO QUITE INADEQUATE.” Mr. C. Mackenzie (Auckland East) 1 said that, from his experience, he was convinced that £2OOO a year was quite inadequate for the High Commissioner. His father (Sir Thomaa MMkearit) had

had to pay double income tax on. the salary, which reduced it to £1350 a year, and had to make it up out of his private income. Most of the business done for the Dominion was done over the dinner table at the clubs, and so on.

Mr. T. E. Y. Seddon (Westland) wafs very glad that the Leader of the Opposition had moved the reduction, because the discussion had thrown a little light, but not nearly enough, on the position. He suggested that the matter should he held Dver until information was available as to how the vote was to be spent. Mr. Massey said that he had no further information to g?ve.

On a division tbfe amendment was lost by 26 votea to 11, and the vote wm carried pfiylbe voUct.