The Senate President was staying tight-lipped yesterday over what role the Upper House would play today in the long-running saga over politicians? pay rises.

Senator Alf Oughton said the controversial resolution would be discussed ? and confirmed he would give his decision on the issue.

However, he declined to give details when asked if the Senate would be in a position to vote on the resolution or whether members would merely be able to talk about the proposed increases.

?You will have to come and listen,? he told . ?I certainly would not give that (information) out in advance.

?I will be giving my opinion tomorrow.?

Other Senators yesterday said they were in the dark about what would happen.

Government Senator Walter Roban said: ?The Senate President will rule on the matter. I do not have any indication as to what that?s to what it?s going to be. I have to wait and see what the ruling is just like everyone else.?

He suggested that the only two people who might know what the ruling would be were Mr. Oughton and Attorney General and Government Senate Leader Larry Mussenden. Attempts to contact Mr. Mussenden were unsuccessful yesterday.

Opposition Senate Leader Kim Swan said he did not want to comment before the President had ruled. ?I have no idea which way it?s going to go,? he added. Reports have suggested Government plan to try and have the increases ? giving Premier Alex Scott an 80 percent pay rise ? rubberstamped by the Senate without a vote. This would mean the Upper House would be reduced to holding a debate, but would be stripped of any power to reject the resolution and would be unable to send it back to the House of Assembly where it was approved earlier this month.

Sen. Mussenden handed the President a lengthy letter when the resolution was carried over a fortnight ago. Contents of that letter are not known, however, there has been speculation Government hoped to get the draft law reclassified from a resolution to a money bill.

The Senate can debate a money bill but must pass it without a vote. Only the Speaker of the House can determine whether a bill should be classified a money bill, according to the Constitution. This apparently was not done when the bill was debated in the House of Assembly.

Speaking after receiving the letter from Sen. Mussenden, Sen. Oughton told : ?They are looking at Section 36 of the Constitution, which says any money bills coming down that implode on the Consolidated Fund means we don?t have the right to vote on them.?The odd thing is the actual Act came into law in 1975 and no-one has ever challenged it before, but by the same token the Constitution overrides legislative acts.?I have to look at that and a few other things in the report and, certainly because of one item in the report, I don?t want to release the letter publicly until I?ve had a chance to answer it in the Senate.? He said he would be ?testing all avenues? to judge the position of the Senate regarding debating and voting on the pay resolution.

Opposition spokesman on Legislative Affairs, John Barritt, has warned Government if it would face problems under the Constitution if tried to get the bill reclassified. And he has said the saga had put Sen. Oughton in a tricky position, leaving him with little option but to seek independent legal advice.

Mr. Barritt also pointed to a 1975 Act that stated that salaries had to be approved by both Houses. The resolution awards large pay rises to Ministers and leading politicians. There had been speculation Senators would reject the resolution that would have seen full-time and part-time Ministers receiving $150,000 and $100,000 respectively.

Other items for business today in the Senate include first readings of the Fisheries Amendment Act and the Endangered Animals and Plants Act, both passed by the House of Assembly on Friday.

A second reading of the Criminal Code Amendment Act is also on the agenda.