COST OF PARLIAMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 77, 31 March 1928, Page 10

COST OF PARLIAMENT.

MEMBERS AT £1536 A YEAR. THEIR HARI> LOT. ITEMS FROM THE ACCOUNTS.

Many of the stories told of the cost of Parliament and its members to the country are gross exaggerations. It has been said and reiterated again and again that while the House of Representatives is sitting it is running up the bill of expenses at the rate of £50 an hour, just as certainly as the gas meter marks off the shillings, and that the Legislative Council, in similar circumstances, is adding at least £20 an hour to the score. These assertions do not take into account at all the inevitable charges, such as members' honoraria and allowances, officials' salaries and maintenance, railway concessions, travelling expenses and so forth; but refer simply to the difference between the two chambers in action and at rest. It is incredible, however, that the difference can amount to as much as £75 an hour or £450 in a six-hour day or £1800 in a four-day week. If this were so it would mean that this intangible expenditure in a 20-week session would amount to £36,000, a sum just equal to the generous honoraria paid to the 80 members of the House. But that the public is entitled to a good deal more information in regard to the cost of Parliament than is afforded by the balancesheet of the Legislative Department for the financial year, 1926-27, no one can reasonably question. The figures, in short, show that after charging rental on the buildings occupied and interest at 4J per cent on the capital employed the expenditure exceeded the income bv £180,133 1/6. The income was derived from the sale of publications (£4302 13/6), profit on sale of typewriters (£26 11/), and profit on sale of Index to Laws of New Zealand (£lll o/l) amounting in all to £4440 0/7.

In Cash and Perquisities. Taking the figures as they stand and distributing the excess of expenditure over income individually among the member of the Council and the members of the House it* appears that each members of the Council, receiving an honorarium of £315, costs the country £1401 a year, while each member of the House, receiving an honorarium of £450 costs the country £1536 a year, with a' few odd shillings and pence to be added in each case. But perhaps this is not altogether a fair method of appraising the cost of a member of Parliament. The Legislative balance-sheet includes on its expenditure side an item of £28 915 which, presumably, is an estimate of'the annual letting value of the Parliamentary Buildings, and, though the members enIjoy most luxurious accommodation

within the stately pile, perhaps they are entitled to regard themselves as guests rather than as boarders. It also is only right to state that the item "salaries, '£27,933 8/5," probably includes the salaries of Minister as well as those of certain officers engaged about the buildings. If this is the case, then the extra cost of a Minister should not be saddled on to a private member. On the other hand, there is a mystery surrounding the expenditure upon Bellamy's, which the uninitiated are unable to solve. In the departmental balance-sheet this font of Legislative refreshment is represented as having expended £9052 upon the entertainment of members last year; but there is no indication of the cost of foods and liquids consumed and no mention of income of any kind. No doubt these omissions are capable of some simple explanation, but the official figures offer no suggestion as to where it may -be found. Meanwhile, the figures might convey to the casual reader the impression that members had received services at the rate of £75 per head during the session without makinoany payment. °

Travelling Facilities. From the very institution of railways in Ivew Zealand down to the present time members of Parliament have enjoyed the privilege of travelling on the State lines free of charge. The privilege continues to be generally regarded as a very proper concession to the nation s legislators, who should take every possible opportunity to make themselves acquainted with the people, with their conditions, and with the various parts of the country. All this is readily conceded. For some vears past, however, the privileges of menibers of Parliament in this respect have been widely extended. The taxpavers of to-! day pay not only for the railwav travelling of members of the Legislative Council and the House of Representatives, but also for the travelling of members' wives sisters, cousins, aunts, and, on occasions' casual acquaintances. In the Legislative Department's balance-sheet for last year the substantial sum of £26,847 2/1 is set down as the expenditure' of the 12 months upon "railway concessions and travelling expenses of members." This raphes, though perhaps not intentionally, that the "concessions" and "travelling expenses" are confined to members of Parliament; but in the appropriations for tne year it is bluntly stated that railway passes and concessions" are available to "members and ex-members of the Legislature, families, relations, and etcetera." With such a wide door open to the friends and etceteras of every member of Parliament it is .ratifying evidence to the moderation of our legislators that the taxpayers were called upon to provide only some £20,000 towards the entertainment of their sruests The 120 members of Parliament, dealt with on a sound business basis, could have been provided with passes carrvin«r them over the whole of the railwav svs" tem and the Lake Wakatipu trip 'as frequently as they pleased for £6000 Xt ? bvioUß > therefore, that the wives and friends and etceteras of

members and ex-members cost the tax* payers during the 12 months at kuf £20,000.

Some Other Item*. There are some smaller items in ths balance-sheet of the Legislative Department which show that members of Parliament, as they should do, are looking after the interests of themselves and their constituents fairly welL The Department itself takes the responsibility for expending last year £1263 19/4 on "postages, telegrams, telephones, etc."; but in addition to this there is a charge of £1944 7/6 for "postage stamps supplied to members." This means an average expenditure per member of £1® 4/, the equivalent of 3888 penny stamps, which few constituents would suspect to be the measure of their representative's correspondence. The substantial item of f22,746 15/7 f<* printing and stationery, while going some way to explain the activity of the Government Printing Office, is not balanced by a corresponding item on the income side of the balance-sheet, the sales of publications amounting to no more than £4302 13/6. The accumulation of printed literature in the basement of the library and the various storerooms is an assurance that none of the Department's publications is likely to be out of print in the very near future. Another item in the balancesheet of passing interest has to do with losses "by shortages and breakages of crockery, etc." It runs into the substantial sum of £245 6/6, and, had it met the eye of a humorist during a sitting of the House, something surely would have been said about members' playful methods of emphasising their arguments. Colour might have been givn to so lame a jest by an item of £6707 0/1, representing "depreciation on furniture, fittangs, library, etc." Ths newspapers, which serve Parliament so well both in session and in recess, seem to have fared rather badly at the hands of the Legislative Department last ve*r, only £175 of the £180,133 expended coming their way. But the Press always was a modest factor in the affairs of State.