This question of the amount necessary here has been under consideration, and also the question of a less expensive house. The Governor-General himself would be very anxious to live in his own house and go out of the Viceregal Lodge altogether, but we, having considered the matter and looking as well as we could into the future, do not think it is desirable that any such thing should be agreed to. We think there should be an official residence for the Governor-General. Not only are we obliged by the Treaty to provide an establishment for the Governor-General, but we think there are good political reasons for having that establishment. It might be that the Chief Secretary's Lodge would serve. It is a very good building. In any case, we will be up against the question of maintaining the actual structure and building of the Viceregal Lodge until some decision has been come to as to the use of it. The question of the actual house in which the Governor-General should live is one which is receiving attention. If the Governor-General were housed in a smaller house, though still sufficiently large, and which could be more economically run, it would probably be possible to effect some reduction in this Vote.
But we have got to look at this matter in a very long-sighted way. I certainly would be very much against doing anything that was at all against the spirit of the Treaty or the Treaty settlement. I would not pay very much attention to an argument that would simply deal with the strict letter of that settlement. Other parties to the settlement attach great importance perhaps to things that we attach little importance to, and we attach great importance to things that they do not attach very much importance to. On the whole, I think it will be found to the benefit of the country, in the case of many matters still outstanding and that require co-operation between the two peoples, if we have in mind always preserving the spirit of the settlement. Taking it in that way, I think it would be false economy to begin to try to cut down unduly the provision for the establishment of the Governor-General. The Government have distinct views about the office of Governor-General. They are, perhaps, not entirely the views of some Deputies, but they are certainly not views that lead to any attempt to belittle the holder of the office or to demean the office itself. The Governor-General lives in a very large house, and the expenses of keeping it are very great.
Deputy Johnson talked about the question of a chaplain being employed for ten persons. There are, perhaps, fifty persons actually employed of one sort or another in or about the house. There are all sorts of employees that are not mentioned here. There is no mention of the people who do the ordinary work of the household. Those people are employed and paid by the Governor-General, and the £3,000 set down here is the State's contribution towards paying them. Deputies, when they talk about the £10,000 salary should remember that that salary is subject to income tax and super tax. If anybody makes a calculation and deducts the payment of income tax and super tax they will see that that £10,000 shrinks very considerably indeed. The Governor-General also naturally has to pay out money in a very great number of directions, and it would be entirely impossible to put on him the cost of maintaining this household out of his salary. It simply could not be done.
I would just like to say this, and it deals again, perhaps, with the views that the Government have in regard to the office of Governor-General. It may be said that the person holding the office ought to contribute £8,000 or £10,000 out of his private resources towards keeping up the establishment. I do not know what the arrangements are in Australia, but it may well be that the people there are content to have the office there practically confined to people who can make substantial contributions out of private means towards the cost of running the establishment. We would not take that view at all. We have certain views as to the line we ought to take when our Governor-General comes to be appointed, and no person can be appointed Governor-General except in agreement with the Executive Council here. We do not want to be in a position, for instance, that the person to be appointed must almost necessarily be somebody from outside this country. That is an aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind when we are thinking about what allowance should be given. I believe, without doing anything contrary to what I have said about policy, that ultimately we will be able to make some reduction in this Vote, but I do not believe that we can make a reduction while the Governor-General is housed in the present building.
Deputy Johnson said he did not see any reason for A.D.C.'s. It should be remembered that these A.D.C.'s, in addition to any other functions they may perform, are necessary for the safety of the Governor-General. It certainly would not promote the interests of the country if you left it open to persons to feel that they would be in no danger themselves if they attempted to interfere with the Governor-General. Things have happened which should, I think, convince anybody that it is necessary that the Governor-General should be attended by people of the type of the A.D.C.'s wherever he goes. You cannot put a private from the Army into the position. You must supply an officer or officers for that particular duty.
There is a great tendency in the country to talk a lot about this Vote, and it is always hard to distinguish between the mere political attack and the genuine bona fide attempt to get this expenditure down, just as other expenses are got down, in some reasonable way, without any harmful reactions on the country. I feel that very often, even where people who attack this Vote have not a political motive, they are too much aware of the sort of political attack that goes on about the matter and allow themselves to be influenced by it. It is not of any use to talk about the amount of this Vote in connection with the question of salaries generally. This Vote and office are in a very peculiar position. We have Treaty requirements and special constitutional requirements, and because it is said that the Governor-General is paid on the Australian or Canadian scale, it does not follow that other salaried servants of the State should be paid on the same scale. We can make our other salary scales suit the conditions of the country. I really think that we could not have this establishment carried on if the reduction were to be carried.
