COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
SPEECH BY
The Rt. Hon. R. G. MENZIES, M. P.,
MINISTERS OF STATE BILL
1959.
[ From the Parliamentary Debates," 14th April, 1959.1
Mr. MENZIES ( Kooyong-Prime Minister)
move-
That the bill be now read a second time.
in accordance with the announcement made
CUHwbyoit hlmt ). y thcaeo lllaeigtatrgleeue em, e eatnrhltei e rTo, fr eaatnhsdue r eiHrn o ( uMascerc., oHrId aarpnorclodepose
not to confine my remarks to the one
bill, but to discuss the whole of the matters
covered by the three bills which have been
referred to. And that, I am sure, is desirable,
because they all arise from the one
investigation, the one report, and the one
series of determinations by the Government.
It is not, Sir, for the first time that the
Parliament has had to consider its own
emoluments, its salaries, its allowances and
3006/ 59. its superannuation benefits, because, of
course, under the Constitution of this country
as it still stands, the salaries of members
of the Parliament-then called allowances
-were fixed at an amount of œ 400 per
annum. But they were fixed until Parliament
otherwise determined, and, as everybody
here knows, that means that Parliament
can from time to time, as it thinks
appropriate, determine these matters. On
this occasion, as on two prior occasions, it
was decided that a committee quite outside
of Parliament-but a knowledgeable committee-
should investigate these matters
and make recommendations to the Parliament
through the Government. This is the
third occasion on which that has happened
and, as on every prior occasion on which
there has been a change of salary or allowances-
going back for over half a century
-there has been a remarkable uproar,
largely fermented, as I will indicate later,
by sections of the press, and, to a large
extent, based upon an unwillingness or an
inability to understand what the duties of
members of Parliament are and what the
duties of Ministers are. This, after all, tonight,
is an opportunity, which I would not
willingly have missed, to enable at least
some hundreds of thousands of people in
Australia to learn that there are two sides to
this question, and I regard my responsibility
this evening as a responsibility to see that
. the Parliament's side of this matter becomes
known to thoughtful people who, in our
experience, will always come down with a
sensible judgment if they have the materials
before them.
In order to begin this exercise, Sir, I
think I should point out something that
most honorable members are familiar with
-that this, of course, is not the first occasion
on which this kind of thing has
happened. When this Parliament began,
58 years ago, the payment to members of
the Parliament was œ 400 a year. That was
in 1901. In 1907, it was increased to œ 600)
a year, and there was an enormous press
agitation. I think it was at that very time
that some talented writer coined the great
phrase about a salary grab, to which, * of
course, people of even greater -genius have
since added such expressions of raiding
the Treasury The payment to members
was increased to œ-600 a year in 1907, and
that increase was violently opposed by,
amion g other people, the very newspapers
that have fermented and led the agitation
against the increases now proposed. The
payment fixed in 1907 stood until 1920-
after the first world war. There had been
a great world war, with all its economic
consequences. There had been all the
inevitable inflationary pressures of a great
war. Yet, in 1920, when a proposal was
brought forward by the then government to
raise the amount to œ 1,000, the agitation
surpassed even that of 1907. That agitalion
came from the same people, the same
very wealthy interests. and was directed to
the same object.
In 1932 -the depression was on, and this
Parliament reduced the œ 1,000 in accordance
with the Premiers' plan. I think it must go on record that that was the first
and only time when these great newspaper
interests approved of what Parliament was
doing. Between 1932 and 1938, as the
depression lifted, certain gradual restorations
were made by Parliament until, by
1938, the sum of œ 1,000 had been completely
restored. That was greated with a
volley of abuse, of course.
In 1947 the amount was, by legislation,
raised to œ E1,500. We had a very spirited
argument in this House on that occasion,
which I have taken the opportunity to reread
in order to refresh my mind on it.
Once more there was a violent press campaign,
directed not to one point that exercized
my mind and those of some other
people in this House at that time-that
wage pegging was still in existence-bu,
directed to the eternal proposition that you
must never increase the salaries of members
of the Federal Parliament becauselet
us face it-we are not worth it.)
In 1952, following a report, further im
provements were made. There were
improvements again in 1956, and now we
have the current proposals. There may be
some honorable members in this House-
I am sure there are-who have never previously
encountered these somewhat wintry
blasts, but I can assure them that they are
no colder to-day than they were in the
past, that they go * on and on, and if anybody
took the trouble to investigate the
nature and source of the press campaign
since 1907, he would be irresistibly driven
to t ' he conclusion that if these gentlemnen
had had their way, members of the Federal
Parliament would still be paid œ 400 a year,
because no improvement of their salaries
has even been lucky enough to secure the
benediction of the press.
I refer to that matter of history becaust)
it is very important that we should under'
stand the existence of this classical contes,
that has gone on between the members of
Parliament who, if I may say so on behalf
of all honorable members, have been
elected by the people to sit in Parliament
and to administer the government of the
country, and those who, elected by nobody
but themselves, undertake to assume control
of the affairs of the country. It is a
classical contest.
On this occasion I have followed the
press campaign with great interest. I can
assure, all honorable members that I have
not lost much sleep over it, but I have
followed it with a certain academic interest.
I have become accustomed. now-well, I did
many years ago-to all those rather con-
. temptuous expressions that are used by
some newspaper critics. But on this occasion
an unbridled attack-I should refer to
it at once-has been led in Sydney by the
Sydney Morning Herald" and its somewhat
curious satellites-I think that is a
courteous term-and in Melbourne by the
" Herald". I want to make an attempt to
assist public thought to achieve a balanced
judgment in this matter. I know that from
the point of view of the press that will be a
futile attempt, but I hope that I will be
u nderstood by a good number of people in
this country.
In the main, what people have learnt
about this matter has been derived from
newspapers such as the ones that I have
mentioned, and I want to say something
about the campaign of each of those two
newspapers in plain terms and, I hope, with
that restraint which characterizes me. I
have a clear duty to my fellow members in
this Parliament, and I am not unwilling to
discharge it. I have a clear duty to the
whole institution of Parliament to put this
matter in its right perspective. Sir, I have
referred to the classical contest between the
press and Parliament. Who interprets public
opinion? Who influences public opinion?
Who gives effect to public opinion? Is it
Parliament, freely elected, known man by
C man and woman by woman, and representative
of the people? Or is it the press, selfelected,
anonymous, and in some cases
representative only of the wealth and whims
of a few? In that contest Parliament must
win if parliamentary government is to be
preserved. Those are preliminary remarks, and I
hope that they will be regarded as by no
means irrational. I believe that they go to
the root of this matter. So now I shall
look at this campaign, which has influenced
so many people and, for all I know, has
influenced so many honorable members
The line adopted by the Melbourne
" Herald" has been almost impossible to
follow, although on the whole it has done
its utmost to whip up feeling against private
members of the Federal Parliament. It has
been almost friendly at times to the improvements
now advised by the Martin committee
3006/ 59.-2 in Victoria but, of course, they were made
in reference to the Parliament of one State,
and therefore they have much more appeal
to the Melbourne " Herald" than recommendatiohs
made with respect to the much
more important Parliament of the nation.
It was, I think, on 18th January that I
announced the appointment of. a committee
to inquire into parliamentary salaries and
allowances. On 19th January, following the
announcement of the appointment of that
committee-an independent committee
appointed to examine parliamentary salaries
and allowances, -a committee against which,
and against any member of which, no
word has been spoken or could be spoken
to impugn their independence or their
probity-the Melbourne " Herald" published
a leading article. I am sure that
honorable members would be grateful if I
recalled the terms of that article to their
minds. The Melbourne Herald stated-
In announcing the appointment of an independent
committee to report on Parliamentary salaries
and allowances, Mr. Menzies is choosing the fairest
way of answering those members of the two Federal
Houses who have been suggesting that another
increase in their pay is merited. The principle
of periodic and independent reviews is sound.
If rates are to be reviewed early in the threeyear
life of each Parliament, as Mr. Menzies suggests,
it should follow that the findings of the
committee are followed throughout this term, and
are applied in their entirety.
Mr. Clyde Cameron.-Who said that?
Mr. MENZIES. The Melbourne
" Herald" on 19th January, 1959. Then
it concluded by saying-
It is right that parliamentary service should be
adequately rewarded, and that its expenses should
be periodically reviewed. But restraint in demands
for privileges, and a lead in accepting the umpire's
decision, are expected from the nation's elected
spokesmen. These, Sir, were the words-on the whole,
rather pious words. But who gave the lead
in rejecting the umpire's decision? The
same newspaper! When the report of the
umpire was made, this very newspaper became
highly critical and indeed almost
vitriolic. So far from recommending that
the umpire's decision should be taken, this
very newspaper argued that there should
not only be frank debate, which everybody
welcomed, but far-reaching amendment.
Oddly enough, the newspaper still said on
30th March of this year-
Sir Frank Richardson and his colleagues
examined the whole question of parliamentary
rewards very closely. The higher rates they reconimend
for the Prime Minister, senior Ministers.
and the Leader of the Opposition might well be
justified.. There is good reason to question some
of the other increases.
When I read that, it was one of the few
occasions in my life when I felt that I
almost had a pat on the back-it was high
time my emoluments were increased. I
began to feel almost like the managing
editor of a newspaper.
The statement would convey to any
reader the impression that those who control
the Melbourne " Herald" had a
quarrel in particular with the salaries of
private members and that there was no
quarrel really with what was proposed for
people like myself. But in the great campaign
to lower the prestige of Parliament,
and correspondingly to increase the
authority of the press, this newspaper
succeeeded in contradicting its own attack.
It has a representative at Canberra, who
wrote and published, not only in the Melbourne
Herald" but in the " Courier-
Mail" in Queensland, an article about the
recommendations concerning myself,
which up to that time I had thought were
being rather pleasantly received. For complete
dishonesty, this article will take a lot
of beating. I want to say this quite plainly:
It is high time" that it-was understood by
some of these people that those who live
by the sword are liable to perish by. the
sword.. . I
This : man. made two points in particular.
The first was. that, under the recommendations,
the Prime Minister is to be given a
total . salary, of œ 10,000, but that as he will
get an additional œ 4,000 odd in special
allowances,: he will be receiving more than
the Prime Minister of Great Britain. This
was put in headlines. As the writer well
knew,: that story was completely untrue.
The Prime Minister of Great Britain does,
I believe, get a net salary of œ 10,000 sterling,
which I would have thought was a very
modest salary for a man carrying his responsibilities
in the world. But does the
" Herald" suppose that he maintains No.
Downing-street and Chequers and discharges
all his representational duties out
of that salary? Of course not! Every
child knows that other financial arrangements
are made about these places and that
substantial entertainment expenses are met
on behalf of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. However, it was thought fit, in
order to stir up public opinion, to pretend,
quite dishonestly, that by comparing my
salary-or my projected salary, because I
have not got it yet-and allowances with
somebody else's salary, omitting his allowances,
passion would be aroused.
A second aspect was developed by the
same gentleman. It was a second fantastic
untruth. He offered to drop a crocodile
tear over the Governor-General. Sir,
I am sorry to have to refer to this and I
do so with the greatest goodwill to the
distinguished Governor-General of Australia.
This man dropped a crocodile tear.
He said, Isn't this terrible; the Prime
Minister of Australia is -to be given
œ 10,000; that is all the Governor-General
gets, and that is what he was getting in
1901 He even achieved the great skill
of referring to it as a unique industrial
anomaly. I do not need to tell my distinguished
friend, the Leader of the Opposition
( Dr. Evatt), or anybody else who has
been in office in this country, that it is
quite true that the salary of the Governor-
General has stood at œ 10,000 since 1901.
It is equally true, though this writer suppressed
it, that that salary is free of tax,
whereas the Prime Minister's salary is, of
course, like anybody else's, taxable.
It is also true that ever since 1901, instead
of changing the salary itself, every
government in succession has accommodated
the Governor-General's office to the
changes that occur by carrying on the
Estimates more and more of the expenditure
that the Governor-General has to
incur. The total vote to-day of that kind
is just on œ 50,000. I do not object to it;
I think it is quite right. For the comparable
items which might be related to the
Prime Minister's allowance, the total would
be certainly not less than œ 17,000 or
œ 18,000. But the newspaper, so desperate
to create a false impression in the public
mind, set out to tell these two absolutely
cracking lies in order to stir up public
opinion. Having said that-I hope with great
moderation and restraint-I will turn to
the other champion dealing with us-the
Sydney Morning Herald Judging by
recent experience, this newspaper understands
the art of monopoly better than,
perhaps, anybody else in the country. I
say -this quite plainly and I hope that many
thousands'of its readers may hear or read
what* 1 say about it: It has conducted a
compl * etely * vicious and misleading campaign.
admit that its reputation for accuracy
has steadily declined in recent yearscertainly
whenever I have had the misfortune
to be in the way. Its antipathy-I
was going to say to my Government, but I
think I should say to any government that
happens po be in office-is well known.
But, day after day, it has published leading
articles on this matter. These articles have
a singularly undergraduate quality in their
thinking and expression, but at any rate
they lose no opportunity to cry down the
quality of the Federal Parliament. Sir, I
hope I will be allowed to say this, and I
hope that people will ponder over it: I have
not observed that any of the rich men who
control this newspaper have offered themselves
for parliamentary service or have
Ccome out of their comfortable anonymity so
that the people may see them and judge
them. One of the most unctuous opinions repeatedly
expressed by this journal is that
we should not seek to attract able men to
Parliament by increasing salaries, since parliamentary
service is a vocation to which
men and women should not be lured by
money. Sir, perhaps I can speak with some
authority about this matter because I do not
think my worst enemy would think I did
not have some sense of vocation in this
matter. My six years as Opposition Leader
\.-with a parliamentary salary of œ 1,000 for
the most part and an Opposition leader's
œ 400 a year with no travelling allowance or
electorate expenses, cost me a substantial
proportion of my savings-with the complete
approval of this newspaper. Sir, I
Qbelieve in Parliament as a vocation which
involves sacrifices, somdtimes of money,
almost always of family life and of the helping
of the future of children. The present
recommendations for members will make
none of them rich. They mean simply that
they will not be or become so financially
embarrassed as to have their public capacity
affected.
But, Sir, I have always heard-I have
been credibly informed if that is the right
phrase-that the leaders of the press had a
sense of vocation themselves sufficient to
make them regard themselves as the Fourth Estate. How do those gentlemen of the.
" Sydney Morning Herald" regard their
own vocation? There is a quite simple test.-
by which the general public can determine
the good' faith and merit of the " Sydney*
Morning Herald's opinion. Let that new Ispaper
publish on its front page in respect'
of its managing director-whose name I
think is Henderson-his salary, -the expenses
of all kinds paid on his behalf by
his company, a short summary of the benefits
by way of concessional shareboldings
which have come to him, and a precise
amount of his superannuation benefits,. both
in terms of capital and income. Let them
not weary in well-doing. So that comparisons
may be fair and assist -the judgment
of their readers, let them also publish similar
details in respect of their next two most
highly paid executive or editorial officers.
Then let them publish on the same pageand
without benefit of interlarded comment
-t-he corresponding figures with which, if
they have read the Richardson report, they
are quite familiar, for the Prime Minister,
the Treasurer and the Minister for Trade
of the National Government. The readers
of the Sydney Morning Herald would
then, Sir, have an opportunity of addressing
themselves to the important question somewhat
overlooked in this context: Whbich trio
has the more responsible task in this nation?
Now, Sir, having said that, I want to turn
to one or two other aspects of this matter.
First of all, it has been said-and said by
people of repute whose opinions I respect
-that the time for these proposals is not
opportune; that it may lead to some impact
on the basic wage, or inflation or something
of that sort. I respect that view. It is; a
circumstance which the Cabinet itself discussed
very elaborately before we appointed
a committee. All I want to say about it is.
this: The proposal to which effect is now
being given is a proposal that the salary and
allowances of members of this Parliament
should be dealt with every three years, at
the beginning of each Parliament, and that
the decision should endure, except for some
quite phenomenal or catastrophic circumstances,
for the whole of the period of three
years. Perhaps it is overlooked that in some
States the basic wage is adjusted on the cost
of living every quarter, but in the Commonwealth
jurisdiction there has, in effect, now
developed a practice of an annual review of
the basic wage. Therefore, the basic wage
or some aspect-some material aspect-of
wages will be under examination every year,
and therefore every year will be a year in
which it is the wrong time to deal with the
salaries and allowances of members of Parliament.
We do not do it this year, but we
do it next year. But next year, the same
business is on. Honorable members will
understand quite plainly that if you are to
refuse to have parliamentary salaries and
allowances dealt with because in the same
year there are wage investigations, then parliamentary
salaries and allowances will not
be dealt with at all for many years to come.
That is my answer to those who, quite
honestly, feel that this is untimely. It always
was untimely, by the way. I do not remember
any occasion on which somebody did
not find it possible to say that the time was
not ripe. But a matter of this kind cannot
be left indefinitely. It is not decent to say
to members of this Parliament that year
after year, whatever comes or goes, they are
not to have their emoluments and their
expenses adjusted. It would be a monstrosity.
Indeed, Sir, I think I ought to permit
myself this remark: There are still a few
people in'Australia who look back to what
they believe to be the good old days when
members of Parliament were not paid at all.
I say this as somebody who, I would have
hoped, was notoriously not greedy on these
niatters:' Unless there were payment of
member's of Parliament and that payment
was adjusted from time to time in the light
of the ' demands of members of Parliament
-if we' went back to the old days-there
would be no Labour Party except by great
sacrifices on the part of trade unions and
People outside to enable them to come here.
Payment of members of Parliament was
one of the earliest reforms advocated in the
nineteenth century, and a very good reform
it was since it enables Parliament to be made
up of a general cross-section of the country
and not of people who are the paid representatives
of some group and of people so
well off that they do not need to be paid at
all. That is not true parliamentary representation.
We have in this House representation
of every kind and class of activity in
the country, and it is a good thing for Australia
that that is so. I apologize for being so long, but the time
must not be begrudged that will enable the
other side of this controversy to, be. made
known. Let me say something about the salaries
and allowances that have been recommended
for members. The committee has
recommended an increase of œ 400 a year
in the salaries. Now Sir, whether that
figure is right or wrong is, after all, a matter
of judgment after consideration of the
facts. It is not a matter of prejudice. It
is not a matter of guesswork. It ought to
be a matter of judgment on the facts. It
has nothing to do with principle; it has
nothing to do with conscience. What the
increase ought to be is a matter than can be
determined only with a knowledge of the
evidence on which the committee acted.
How can we know what the evidence was?
Honorable members of this House, of all
parties, laid material before the committee
and gave confidential information. They
are not going to have that information published
to the world.
Mr. Clyde Cameron.-I do not mind if
my overdraft is published.
Mr. MENZIES.-No. but that'iS because
your bank manager is familiar with it
already. These things are not to be made
matters of public notoriety. I have not
seen the material put forward by any
honorable member, nor has any newspaper
writer. The committee saw this evidence,
and the committee formed its judgment on
it. Somebody might have said that the
increase should be œ 200. I would have
thought that in all the circumstances nobody
could decently have suggested less
than œ 200, having regard to the events
that have occurred. Somebody might say
œ 200; somebody else might Say œ 250, and',
indeed, somebody might say œ 500. The
committee has formed its judgment and has
said œ 400-and this is the recommendation,
mark you, which has brought down the
major volley of abuse, the recommendation
for the increase for private members. It
has been said, " I do not mind about the
Ministers", and " Of course the Prime
Minister ought to be paid more", but
private members? No!
Somebody had the impertinence to say
that this committee had sat secretly, that
there was something furtive about the whole
business. Furtive! The commitee was appointed
and a public announcement made.
The committee then sat. It advertised to
the public that it would be glad to receive
evidence from members of the public,
either orally or in writing, and it invited
every member of both houses of this
Parliament, by circular, to offer such information
as they cared to. Not only were
various members of the public interviewed,
at their own request, by the committee, but
-and I state a conservative figure-no less
than 1,500 written communications were
received by the committee from persons
other than members of Parliament. Every
one of those communications was read;
every one of them was laid before the
committee. Therefore the committee had
the material before it on which it could
apply its mind to the decision. What it
did was to set out to establish a standard
which would enable men of ability and
without private means to offer themselves
S to Parliament and to remain in Parliament.
Does anybody quarrel with that as
a standard? Does anybody in Australia
want to have a national Parliamentremember
that this is the great Parliament
of the country-from which men of ability
without private means will be excluded for
financial reasons? The question has only
to be put to answer itself.
Now,. Sir, I have stated the position as
regards salaries. Of course it has been
said, not here but elsewhere, " The federal
committee was hand-picked Well, I sup-
C pose it was. I suppose every committee
that is appointed, without being elected by
somebody, is hand-picked. I suppose the
newspaper editors and their right-hand men
are hand-picked, since I have no reason to
believe that they are elected by anybody.
Therefore, if hand-picked means chosen, we
plead guilty-they were chosen. But, as I
said before, I have not read or heard of
anybody sufficiently bold to accuse the three
prominent citizens who sat on the committee
of dishonesty or of indirect motives
or of intellectual incompetence.
It is very interesting that the Victorian
Government appointed a committee which
recently made a report. I do not think
there was one man on the committee who
could be accused of being-what is the expression-
a great business tycoon. They
seemed to me to be well known, highly regarded, respectable, normal citizens, and
they made a report. The interesting point
is that, despite the material difference in
responsibilities between the Parliament of
the nation and a parliament of one State,
that committee made recommendations certainly
no less adequate than the ones that
we are considering, and in some respects
even more so. But I have not so far read
any attack either on the membership or on
the report of that committee.
Now, Sir, apart altogether from salaries,
the Richardson committee made recommendations
regarding increases in the electorate
allowances of members. There has been an
enormous amount of misleading comment
on this matter. I just want to make one
or two remarks about this aspect. I know
that every honorable member is aware of
these facts, but I am sure that many people
are not. Of course this practice of publishing
members' salaries and allowances, adding
the two together and calling the result
the salary, is a clever little trick.
Mr. Luchetti.-Dishonest.
Mr. MENZIES.-It is quite dishonest,
quite fraudulent, but I find'that people are
misled by it. I wonder what would happen
of some of the people who: practice this
little trick had their own expenses added on
to their salaries and the totals published as
their salaries. Dear me, I can hardly imagine
the consequences of it! Of course,
electorate expenses are granted in order to
cover electorate expenses.. They are granted
to recoup a member of Parliament for the
expenditure which he must incur if he is
going to be a conscientious and competent
representative of his electorate.-Of course,
the expenses vary from place to place. How
can you do more than establish a : sensible
average in matters such as this? I will
undertake to say that there are honorable
members in this House, with large, rambling
country electorates, who spend far more in
attending to their electorates, going from
place to place, driving their cars, paying
their hotel bills, attending to their corre-
Rpondence and paying postages, than they
get under the existing allowances.
I thought the committee did a very sensible
thing in regard to this matter. Realizing
that all this argument about allowances
was grossly misunderstood, it set out to
classify some of the items on which members
have to spend money. It mentioned
dona -tions, subscriptions, accommodation,
travelling expenses, postages and other
matters. I am not going to take up time
in reading that part of the report. I only
hope that most people will ultimately read
it. But, having looked at it and considered
it, who are we to say that the sum that is
calculated is wrong? How would I know?
Take my own case, as Prime Minister, with
a major responsibility for Cabinet decisions.
How on earth would I know what the
honorable member for Darling ( Mr. Clark)
has to spend, or the honorable member for
Macquarie ( Mr. Luchetti), or the honorable
member for Kalgoorlie ( Mr. Browne), in
the course of a year in representing their
particular electorates. The committee, I
think, directed its mind to that with the
greatest possible care, and it has made
recommendations. Apparently, we are invited
to reject these recommendations, not
in favour of a carefully calculated sum
but in favour of a mere guess, a mere
uninformed guess, as to what the amount
should be.
Now. Sir, the next point that I want to
mention-it also has a bearing on this
matter-was mentioned by the Richardson
Committee in its report for, I think, the
first time. It is very well for people to
affect to sneer at members of Parliament
-the * very ones whom they elected to this
place as the-best available candidates not so
long ago! But most members of Parliament
have the great privilege of possessing
a wife, and everybody who has sat in Parliament
for any time at all knows that his
wife works as hard as he does in the representation
of the people. I marvel from
time to time at the labours that are undertaken
by our wives, some cynic may say
in our interests, but I prefer to say in the
interests of the discharge of our public
duties. The committee has pointed this
out. Is the point of view that that does
not matter? How can the wife of a member
of Parliament or a Minister discharge
her public responsibilities and at the same
time do what she would like to do about the
bringing up and educating of her family?
This is a matter of far more than money.
This is the sacrifice that is made by people
who go into Parliament, and the whole
future, of the sons and daughters of very
many members of Parliament has been affected by the fact that there has' been no
opportunity to give them the close parental
consideration that would normally be given
in the ordinary household. I do not want
to be like some of these critics and convert
everything into cash. I will content myself
by saying that I think a parliamentary wife
is worth something, and that it would be
a great pity if a member of Parliament did'
not receive a degree of remuneration which
enabled his wife to do these things in the
public field while, at the same time, discharging
her duties as a wife and as a
mother. I turn now to members' pensions. This
committee did a valuable service in this respect
because it pointed out-many honorable
members more familiar with the
details than I am may have realized it
already, but it certainly pointed out to me,
among others-that this parliamentary pensions
scheme, so far from being something
for which the taxpayer assumes complete
responsibility is, in an uncommonly hig'* i
degree contributory. You know how people
are so willing to sneer about these things,
saying, Oh, yes, they have pensions and
they pay practically nothing for them
That is a lot of nonsense. I have yet to
hear of any superannuation scheme outside
Parliament under which an employee, if
we may so describe ourselves for that
purpose, pays 10 per cent, of his salary
into the superannuation fund. The committee
pointed this out, and said-I am sure
that nobody could seriously disagree with it
-that therefore these pension benefits
ought to be improved, that a slight increase
in the payments by members would enable
that improvement to be made, and that
under anything short of abnormal circumstances,
the fund would be, as it is to-day,
extraordinarily solvent. I do not think it is
very good English to say that something is
" 1extraordinarily solvent but it means,
presumably, that there is a pretty substantial
credit balance, thanks to members
contributions. The present recommendations
will still leave the parliamentary pensions
scheme much more onerous to contributors
than any outside scheme of which
we have knowledge. But I do urge that the
people should understand that although
there has been a whipping up of opinion on
this matter, the parliamentary pensions
scheme is in. fact one for which members
themselves carry a degree of responsibility
greater than that which people in superannuation
schemes in any other walk of life
that I know of are called upon to carry.
One question that arises at once is
whether the pension benefits should be
made retrospective. I use the word rather
loosely. The question is whether those
who,, having gone out of Parliament, are
already drawing parliamentary pensions,
should have the benefit of these improvements.
There is no recomm endation on
that point by the commitee. The Cabinet
is of opinion that in these circumstances,
as there will be additional contributions and
additional benefits in future, the contributory
pensions now being paid ought to
remain on their existing footing and that
the increased pensions ought to have only
a future operation.
Now, Sir,, having said that, I turn to the
great problem of Ministers' salaries. I do
Qmnoatn p riosp omseu ctho osafy avne rya dmvouccaht ea bionu th iist. oNwon
cause; I very much prefer to do what I have
been doing so far, that is, to advocate the
cause of members of this Parliament. But,
of course, Ministers' salaries were bound
to be reviewed. I hope that everybody in
Australia. will understand that when thc
first Richardson committee was appointed
and made its report in 1955 the Cabinet
expressly excluded from its terms of
reference the salaries of Ministers and parliamentary
officers, because we felt that at
that time in some particular circumstances
Cwme a tthear, d wtoi thsohuot wd ean yliinttgle tor esmtreaminbt erosn thtehiirs
right to a review. In the result, seven years
of great economic changes and stresses and
all kinds of circumstances have gone by
since the! salaries of Ministers in this Parliament
were looked at, and I would think
( Lthmat ean soAmuesbtordalyi anw outold cnoemede taol obneg a atp rethttiys
stage and say that they ought not to be
reviewed on this occasion.
Sir, in the -result, the committee has
looked at this matter. It has recommended
two things about Ministers, one an increase
in salaries and the other a series of
non-contributory pensions for Ministers
with a minimum period of six years of service
as Ministers and a maximum period
of ten years or more. We have given a great deal of thought to this. We shrewdly
suspect that the committee regarded thesc
two things as being in parallel and recommended
them both, thinking that they
supplemented, each other. But we had
many discussions and we quite freely
reached the conclusion that to introduce
these pension payments for people other
than the one exception, that was originally
established years ago in regard to a Prime
Minister, would be wrong. We thought
that it would be a good thing if, instead of
having non-contributory pensions for
Ministers, we applied ourselves to the task
of seeing whether some suitable contributory
scheme, quite distinct from the members'
fund, could be worked out. Of course,
that will take time. Therefore we say
nothing more about it except this, that we
are not legislating for non-contributory
pensions for Ministers on this occasion.
Sir, I had no idea, when I stood up, that
I was going to speak for an hour, and it
seems fantastic to have to refer, before I
sit down, to one magnificient item-motor
cars-because the committee made a recommendation.
I do not know why; it is not a
very great matter. But it was to the effect
that anybody who had been Prime Minister,
Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the
Opposition or Deputy Leader of the Opposition
in this House for five long, weary
years was to have for three years after he
left Parliament the benefit of an Official car,
no doubt for public and official functions.
Well, it is one of those little things that
have attracted so much attention from some
people that one would think it was almost
earth-shaking. In fact, there has been so
much argument about it that anybody who
stands a chance of being a beneficiary from
it would, if he is like me, sooner be without.
Therefore, we drop it. It flutters to the
ground like a dead leaf. It is gone. I hope
that that knowledge will give everybody
great comfort, and I part with * it, myself,
with no sorrow at all.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude with the hope
that the Australian public, now having
heard, in an imperfect way and by no means
exhaustively, the case for their elected
representatives in Parliament, will consider
that case with care and will determine it
with their usual judgment.
BY AUTHOR] TY: A. J7. ARTHUR, COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANBERRA.