The Press Monday, March 14, 1932. The Cost of Parliament.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20495, 14 March 1932, Page 10

The Press Monday, March 14, 1932. The Cost of Parliament.

It is not easy to understand the principles that guided the Economy Commission in its proposals to reduce the cost of the Legislative Department. Although it recommends a 10 per cent, cut in the salaries of public servants, it does not recommend, or even discuss, reducing the salaries of Cabinet Ministers and members of Parliament. It is true that some of the suggested economies in the Legislative Department, such as the curtailing of railway and postage concessions, will increase the expenses of members, but others, such as a reduction in the number of free copies of Hansard, will merely put an end to extravagant habits. Most people will feel, however, that if there is to be a further cut in public service salaries, Ministers and members of Parliament should set an example by cutting their own salaries at the same time. Members of the House at present get £405 a year and Ministers £IOSO, and it is hard to believe that a 10 per cent, cut, with some allowance for reduced concessions, would bear more heavily on them than on public servants. It may be, of course, that the Commission's suggestion that the membership of the House should be reduced means that it expects Parliament to reduce the aggregate of salaries instead of the rate; but the suggestion is not likely to be favoured either by Parliament or the country. Many members already have exceedingly large electorates to cover, and within still wider boundaries would find it impossible to keep in sufficiently close touch with their constituents. The Commission's comparison, on a population basis, of the membership of the House of Commons with that of the New Zealand House of Representatives is worth very little, because in a country with limited transport facilities and thinly scattered communities it is area rather than population that counts. It would also be -interesting to know what the Commission* means by its recommendation that "to con"form to the traditional practice of " the British Parliament, honoraria to "members of the Legislature . . . " should be provided by annual appropriation rather than by permanent •' appropriation." There is nothing in the present arrangement to prevent a majority of membere from increasing salaries when they choose. They can even do it without going to the trouble of amending the Legislature Act, as when, quite recently, they voted themselves a bonus. This procedure, of course attracted wide and, severely critical attention because it was unusual. Bu£ if the system were introduced of fixing members' salaries by annual vote, it would make alteration easier and normalise the temptation to raise the figure a little nearer to the level of selfestimated deserving.