Members’ Pay

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27637, 19 April 1955, Page 12

Members’ Pay

The Royal Commission on Parliamentary salaries and allowances in 1951 remarked that the electors still regard “ with hostility and “suspicion” the emoluments of the men and women they elect to Parliament, and that for this reason increases made by Parliament itself had always been belated and below what was fair in the circumstances of the time. The commission had no difficulty in showing that, by comparison with most other countries in the British Commonwealth, New Zealand Ministers and members of Parliament were poorly paid. Nor had it any difficulty in demonstrating the disadvantages to a parliamentary democracy of grossly underpaying the legislature. The increased salaries and allowances recommended by the commission, and subsequently put into effect, were substantial; but they were not generous. They left the Parliamentary emoluments considerably below those ruling in most other Dominions. The commission adopted ■ a principle, enunciated in England, that “ payments should maintain the “ holder of any office comfortably “ and honourably, but not luxur- “ iously ”; but it also, apparently, had some regard for the very strong feeling in England against making the rewards of political power too attractive. The commission took into account, “ by way of discount, “as it were, that sense of public “duty which is the spirit and “ conscience of Parliament ”. Its recommendations, the commission considered, were “ the minimum ”. The Prime Minister could have pointed to these references in the report of the Royal Commission, had he felt it necessary to justify his announcement that, as provided in the Civil List Act of 1950, another 1 Royal Commission will be set up to review the salaries and allowances fixed in 1951. Fair-minded electors, , however, will not cavil at the ’ decision, which apparently has the support of both parties. Salaries and wages generally have greatly increased since the last review of Parliamentary salaries and allow- , ances; and if the view of the 1951 ' commission is accepted—that the

emoluments it then recommended were “ the minimum ” —it must also be accepted that Ministers and members are now markedly underpaid. As Mr Holland said, it is also time for a review of the allowances which are fixed according to the nature of the electorates;, for electoral boundaries have been greatly changed in the interval. :There is much to be said for the

general principle that Parliamentary salaries should be reviewed after each election. The people’s elected representatives will still, on the average, get their “ cost-of-living “ increments ” long after everyone els<