There are some Deputies who were not present during the discussion on the previous amendment, and I am confident that they cannot have understood the argument for the amendment they were voting upon, or they would not have voted against the proposition. While Deputy Morrissey is, perhaps, justified in saying that there is no need to repeat the arguments because they were stated on the last occasion, it seems to me that the case is so clear, unless there is distinct prejudice against the wage earner as distinct from the salaried person, that the Deputies who were not present during the last discussion ought to be told exactly what they are asked to decide.
For the benefit of those Deputies let me re-state it very shortly. We have been engaged in this part of the Bill in dealing with superannuation for salaried officers. We have devoted a good deal of time to it; we have made certain extensions in regard to persons who have been employed on salaried rates and become pensionable officers. Here is a proposition which suggests that we should make it possible for a local authority, that employs a man continually for twenty years, to give that man a pension, at sixty-five years of age, not exceeding two-thirds of his annual income—always subject to the sanction of the Minister—and that in the case of a man who has served a long period, and become infirm in the service, a grant might be made to him.
I cannot imagine Deputies who may have gone to their constituents at one time or another and talked about fair conditions of employment—no distinction between class and class, recognition of the rights of labour, no discrimination because of birth, who have preached democratic doctrines—voting against a proposition to place the wage earner in a position, so far as pensions are concerned, somewhat approximating to that of the salary earner. The position of that wage earner is not going to be really analogous, but I want to place him somewhere in the same sphere with regard to pensionable possibilities. I ask Deputies if they clearly understand the position; that they are voting against placing the wage earner in a position somewhat approximating to that which the salary earner is already in, and which they have been voting to secure him in, in respect of pensions. Can they, with a clean conscience, and with a good understanding, vote against an amendment of this kind, and then repeat that they make no distinction, that they want to obliterate class interest and want to unite wage earner and salary earner, employer and employee, upper class and lower class, professional and artisan, in one happy brotherhood? They will vote for this amendment if they ever want to go before their constituents and repeat any phraseology of that kind. This is a test, and I ask Deputies who did not hear the discussion on the last occasion and who may have heard it now to justify themselves for future notification.
