Sharing Ministerial Salaries

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21715, 24 February 1936, Page 10

Sharing Ministerial Salaries

In a statement printed in "The Press" this morning the Minister for Finance, Mr Nash, gives further details of the Labour party's scheme for " salary sharing on a basis of cooperative service." The Prime Minister, under the new arrangement, will receive £7OO a year less than the amount to which he is legally entitled, but will receive a special entertainment allowance of £250; others Ministers will receive between £4OO and £SOO less than the present legal rate, which is £922 with residence; and private members representing Labour constituencies will receive an additional £ 100 a year, bringing their salaries up to about £ 483. The first comment which must be made on this arrangement is that the members of the Cabinet have made a sacrifice which is a testimony to their political sincerity. In the long run, however, the Labour party will probably be compelled to recognise that it is inherently unfair and that it is based on a mistaken view of the functions of Parliament. In New Zealand politics is a part-time occupation; and there is probably not a single member of the present parliamentary Labour party who has not some source of /income apart from his salary as a member of Parliament. The main justification for paying Ministers of the Crown more than private members is that Ministers are usually compelled to devote all their time to politics and to negiect their private business interests. Under the new scheme they will receive very little more than private members. If, therefore, the scheme is to be equitable in its working, private members ought to be compelled to devote their whole time to the business of government. It is difficult to believe that they will do so and hardly desirable that they should do so. Since cf Parliament cannot feel sure that they will continue to be members of Parliament for the rest of their lives, it is not reasonable to ask them to abanddn their business interests or to sacrifice all additional sources of income. In practice, whatever adjustments may be made to accommodate individual circumstances, the salary sharing scheme will impose a heavy financial penalty on Ministers. Because, according to Mr Savage, the principle of Ministerial responsibility will not be abrogated or weakened by the scheme, the work of a Minister will not be appreciably lessened, and may even be increased, by the existence of a committee of party members charged with the task of advising and assisting him. And however assiduous he may be, the private member r.ttached to this or that Ministry will not be required to work as hard as the Minister or to assume the same responsibilities. Lut the greatest argument against the salary sharing scheme is that it is based on a false conception of the functions of members of Parliament. Mr Savage is commendably determined that every Labour member of the House %hould play a useful part in the government of the countryBut he does not seem to realise that, as. long as the principle of Ministerial responsibility is retained, Parliament cannot entrust the control of administrative departments to committees as a city council does. Committees of private members can only offer a Minister advice on the problems confronting him, and in doing so they will be usurping the functions of departmental officials. The proper function of members of Parliament is not to govern the country or to offer expert advice; it is, in the words of an English political philosopher, " to inter- " pret the Government to the people and the "ceoDle to the Government."