MEMBERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 9988, 18 March 1898, Page 4

MEMBERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES.

One of the belated Parliamentary papers which has just made its appearance is a schedule of travelling allowances of members of the House of Representatives, paid during the years 1891-98. The amounts dealt with are not large, but some curious discrepancies occur. The rule is that members are allowed actual fares and "reasonable expenses." The senior member for Cb.ristcb.urch, we observe, drew £2 for his fare and claimed nothing for expenses. We do not see why any Canterbury member need claim much more than actual travelling fare, unless in returning he arrives at Lyttelton too late to catch a train to his home. Mr. Montgomeby, for example, in 1894, '95 and '96 drew £2 10s, 10s and £2 10s respectively—these sums probably representing the variation in Union Steamship Company's charges,—and he claimed nothing more. Mr. W. Tanner, however, who lives at Woolston, drew £3 Bs, £2 and £3 18s 6d for the same years. Evidently when Mr. Tanner travels he does things in a more lordly style than the hon. member for Eilesmere. Mr. Joyce, who lives in Lyctelion, drew £8 19s, £1 19s and £8 12s respectively. What are the "incidentals" which go to swell the amount we of course cannot pretend to say. Mr. Joyce simply had to go on the steamer at Wellington and get off at Lyttelton, and we cannot see what need there was to spend more than the steamer fare. Following are other figures for the same years :—Mr. W. W. Collins, £3 iSs, £8 Ida, £4 ss; Mr. G. J. Smith, £3 10s, £2 15s, £3 12s; Mr. G. W. Ktjssell, £8 15s, £8, £4. To put the matter in another form it cost the last-named gentleman £2 over and above passage money to travel to Wellington and back in 1896, and his colleagues whom we have named the sum by which their drawings exceed £2 the steamer's charges. A " iibaral" conception of the amount of ofcher people's money to be expended when travelling is not, it would appear, peculiar to the Premier. !

Going further afield we find that it annually costs Mr. Flathan over i>2los in " incidentals " and " contingencies" when travelling to and from Wellington. 14 boat Mr. Duncan in this way

soma 50 per cent, more from Oamaru than Mr. Eabnshaw, a teetotaller, spent between Dunedin and Wellington. Mr. Hogg, in spite of his railway pass, cannot get to Wellington" from Masterton without an expenditure of 30s. There is yet another instructive case which j ought not to be omitted. In 1895 Mr. Meredith drew £8 12s, in 1896 £8 13s. Now Mr. Meredith lives at the Oust, he caja come in by the train free, and the 'return steamer fare to Wellington is £2. How, then, does Mr. Meredith charge £1 18s for passage money and £8 Ids for expenses? We explained the mystery during the last general election. We said that Mr.j Meredith, instead of returning to his home by Lyttelton, came overland from Blenheim or Nelson so thai! he might travel right through his loijig and scattered district, canvassing for! votes at the colony's expense.. The' return now presented bears oufc the sjfeatemeut we tben made. It Mr. Montgomeky could get to and from Little Biver, and Mr. Saunders to and from j West Melton for £2, how does }lv. Meuedith justify his action in drawing £6 lQs more ? In travelling to his home by way of Blenheim and then overland does he consider that he is incurring only "reasonable expenses ? " Is he with|in his rights in asking the colony to help pay his electioneering expenses seeing that he draws £20 per month for the purpose of meeting the inevitable demands upon an M.H.R. ? If Mr. Lewis—who simply puts in for the £2, which is the U.S.S. Company's ■f ar e —liked to go by steamer to the West Coast and thence to Chrisfcchurch by Mr. Cassidy's coach, would his demand for expenses so incurred be deemed a reasonable one? Clearly every member is expected to travel by the cheapest, shortest and most direct route.

Speaking of the West Coast reminds us that the members from that district are somewhat expensive luxuries. Mr. O'Regan figures in the return for £14, Mr. Guinness for £12, while Me. E. McKenzie's presence in Parliament in 1896 was only secured at a cost of £17. For our part we would willingly pay double the amount to keep him at home. We notice that his incidental expenses, which in 1891 amounted to £2 -Is, stand at £6 in 1895 and £6 15s in 1896. Clearly by the time this gentleman becomes Premier he will at this rate be able to draw up a bill of travelling expenses of whioh even his present leader would not be ashamed. As regards actual amount the whole expenditure under this head, as we have said, is not very serious. The total passages came to about £200, and the expenses to £170 for a session. Straws, however, show the way the wind blows, and it will generally be found that the man who enters Parliament from purely unselfish motives is always the most moderate in his demands upon the colonial purse, even in small affairs like the drawing of travelling expenses for the purpose of attending the House.