WELLINGTON NEWS

Hokitika Guardian, 4 November 1925, Page 1

WELLINGTON NEWS

parliamentary salaries,

(Special to “Guardian”.)

WELLINGTON, Nov. 2

AVhilo in N\SAV. the Labour Government has grabbed additional salary and the West- Australian legislature thinks £-100 a year inadequate remuneration, and the South Australian Parliament wants the President of the Arbitration Court to fix the wages of members, a Wellington candidate lias entered a protest against the enormous expenditure on memltcrs of Parliament. He said that prior to 1891 the honorarium was £l5O for the session whatever its length, and was intended to cover the out-of-pocket disbursements of memliers. After the maritime strike, when fhe late All* John If allottee became Premier, lie was of opinion that it was desirable to have Labour representatives in the House, and to make this possible without serious loss to the representatives the honorarium was raised to £2lO payable at £2O monthly and unattnchablo. This had since been raised, and at one time amounted to £.500 per member for the House of Representatives which later was reduced io C 150 to give a. lead in economy. Tt was a 10 per icnr. reduction. Rut that is not all for in the Supplementary "Estimates of this year a. sum of £24,178 was provided for railway passes and concessions io members and exmemhers of the Legislature and their families, relations, etc., an average of over £2OO for each member of l)oth houses, and there was an additional sum oT £BOSO. or nearly £7O Tor each member of both houses which the taxpayers had to pay. that being the loss at Relhimy's caused by supplying the members with fod and drink at less than cost price. And the candidate added: “Til illy opinion this is wholesale extravagance, and the tendency is to raise up a. hand of professional politicians and professionalism in polities is just as harmful and dangerous as professionalism in sport. The whole basis of Parliamentary representation is service lo the people as in fho case of Juries whose remuneration never u:\vs them for the time spent in Court’. The people do not waul this service atIhe cost of the individual, so if has alvnvs been considered right to refund on a generous scale llie out-of-pocket expenses of the Parliamentarian. TTc was not paid Tor the service he rendered Ihe country under the system in vogue prior to 1891. and the sooner "c got hack to this basic idea fhe more wholesome and purer will our political life become. To-day it- is the happy hunting ground of mnnv opportunists. '|'li,. idea that animated the late John Tlallanee was good. Tr we could return lo this basis of remuneration 1 think we should have a better tone in our political life and our legislation would he based more on sound common sense and practical economies than on. the impossible clap-trnn that is so often siiggesied to the electors. Parliament in my opinion has icrtainly degenerated ami the blame rests with the electors lor we are not sufficiently jealous of the ione am 1 character of our Parliament. Ido not wish to .suggest (bal Parliament is corrupt hut T do say lhaf its quality has deteriorated in many ways, and we. the people, are to blame for it.”

BANKS AND RANKING. A good many candidates possessing M-uiilv. if anv knowledge at all of hanking, have tilted at- the hanks trading iu X.Z. and with less knowledge of hanking affairs in Australia, have taken the Commonwealth Rank as a model for comparison. One candidate made (In- absurd statement that there were 122 trading hanks in Australia, while ns m mailer of fact there are only 15. ,-unl men nho make such foolish statements are expecting lo he accepted as authorities. Then again il is claimed that we are underbanked in N.Z. AYitli its 10 banks, including the Cimnionv.ealih Rank. Australia has one hanking insi ilnl ion lor every .940,000 or population. Tn New Zealand there are six hanks or one to every 210,000 or the population. Ti was asserted that file Commonwealth Rank made a profit of £802.000. This was apparently taken from the balance sheet for Ihe half year ended .Tune .‘loth. last. As a matter „f fact the profit was little larger, but- the profits from hanking wove only £•200,000 and the profits from llie note issue department £578.500. The note issue is a State monopoly, and on the above basis the profit for the current year would he Cl .157.000. Tn Now Zealand the hanks pay a note- tax of 9 per cent, for Ihe privilege of issuing (heir own notes, and if the note circulation in New Zealand were as large as it is in Australia the note tax would amount to over £1.010.000. The advances made hv the Commonwealth Bank, according to its last balance .sheet is £14.000,000. while our own semi-state institution the Bank of New Zealand lias advances totalling £19.800.000. Tt is n pity those who know nothing of the science of hanking should ho so dogmatic in their views. The attack on our hanks is discreditable.