A pay rise.

*THE WORKER*

Brisbane, December 8, 1894.

THE EDITORIAL MILL.

Our Motto: “Socialism in our time.”

It is said the Labour Party is secretly glad that the late political crisis did not result in a dissolution, because an appeal to the country on the question of increased payment to members would result disastrously to some of the members of the party. And – parrot – like – working men repeat the phrases of capitalism, taunting their representatives with with voting to increase their own salaries while doing their level best to retrench other people. I fail to see where there's any occasion for secret joy at the circumstance that the Nelson Government is still at the wickets. The majority of Queensland voters, in the event of a dissolution, would not have allowed the demand of the Labour Party for a fair parliamentary salary to blot out all the sins of the Conservatives who occupy the Treasury benches. If such a question could so obscure the real issue, then there's small hope for reform legislation in this country for a generation.

* * *

The tenacious manner in which the members of the Ministry cling to office should be proof enough that there's something wrong in their administration of the country's affairs. An honest Government would with a majority of one indignantly decline to carry on, and would court the strictest inquiry into their mode of administration; but the Nelson Government evidently fears something. There's “a skeleton in the closed,” which might be exposed to the public gaze if a new Government is allowed to investigate the methods of Boodledum. This does not weigh an ounce, however, in the scale of some wage-earners' consideration. It is sufficient for them that the Labour members, finding £3 17s. 8d. per week too small a sum to enable a member of Parliament to live decently, have voted for a motion which would give them £4 16s. per week each. This is considered a terrible crime, and one meriting political extinction. Given a dissolution and it is said the Government of drift, drivel, and rotten promises would have received another lease of life, and the Labour members' career would have ended. Some people are easily gulled. A Courier leader, or a paragraph by Dr. Points of the Telegraph, does the trick in a twinkling. Nothing more is required to blot out the memories of wrongs and injustice received at the hands of the McIlwraithian's, Nelson's, and Griffith's.

* * *

Apart from the constitutional question of allowing the irresponsible Legislative Council to interfere with the financial business of the representative Legislative Assembly, the Labour members were only carrying out a programme which had the complete acquiescence of their constituents prior to the general election last year. There was only one opinion about the contemptible tactics of the last Parliament in reducing members' salaries to £150 per annum to meet the return of a greater Labour Party; and every man in the Labour movement was willing that as soon as possible a respectable salary should be obtained for each parliamentary representative. Why the change of front on the part of some wage workers? Has anything occurred to justify a continuance of the low wages paid to members? Is food cheaper, clothes cheaper, rent lower?

* * *

Just payment of members is the basis of real representative Government, and it is to be hoped the people of the colony will not allow the slanders of opponents of reform to influence them against their represntatives. It is said this is an inopportune time for members to increase their own salaries, but there never was an attempt made at any time to increase wages but the same argument has been brought forth as if it were original. Let the lowest paid workwoman or workman ask for an increase even in the best of times, and we have always the same answer. The time is inopportune. Our experience of non-paid Parliament is that the members succeeded in paying themselves by means of political railways, by land dummying, or by other methods. Who is not acquainted with the political patriot who did not believe in payment of members because it was derogatory to his position, but who unblushingly could appropriate £20,000 in the shape of lands and railways – as much in one year as it would take to pay all the members £300 a year.

Who does not recollect the two and a half millions taken out of a certain mountain by private individuals without the State reaping any advantage, because the Mount held Parliament insteading of Parliament holding the Mount. And who fails to remember that only last session, owing to the presence in Parliament of a Labour Party which boldy asks for a reasonable wage, the great land steal of the century was prevented by the throwing out of a land bill which proposed to sell the heritage of our children to foreign syndicates and others at five shillings an acre; the action of the Labour Party thus saving to the country more money than would pay all the Labour members £300 a year for the rest of their natural lives. Yet there are men in our midst, men who clamour for fair conditions and good wages, who in their narrow-minded jealousy and selfishness, would proclaim undying hostility to a Labour member who would claim fair conditions and good wages fearlessly and openly instead of in the underhand manner the average capitalistic politicians pays himself. Such is the reward of honesty. If the workers of Queensland want honest and couragous men to represent them in Parliament, let them be willing to pay a fair wages for services rendered. If services are not rendered faithfully, then alter the servant, not lower the wages.

Nulla Nulla