Comment From The Capital

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29017, 5 October 1959, Page 12

Comment From The Capital

(By Our Parliamentary Reporter]

WELLINGTON, October 4, Members of Parliament are not entirely happy about the decisions of the Royal Commission on Parliamentary Salaries and Allowances. It has been suggested that it might have been fairer to people so much in the public eye had the commission indicated the average net rather than the gross increases recommended. Some Ministers claim that when all the recommendations are taken into consideration they will actually be poorer than before. At the same time, as more than one has said, the “generous” increases have come in for a good deal of criticism. Members have found that the salary increases, which place them in a higher taxation bracket, will mean more income tax. The recommendation that superannuation contributions by Members of Parliament should be increased from 7.2 to 10 per cent, of salaries means that members will pay in much more without any eventual increase in pension. The recommendation that Ministers’ expense allowances (which are tax-free) should be cut by £lOO could by itself wipe out any advantages. Other and smaller changes include elimination of a long-standing perquisite: travel expenses to and from Parliament at the beginning and end of each session will no longer be refundable. A Christchurch member has worked out in detail just what the recommendations, if adopted (and they are almost certain to be), will provide for Parliamentarians. On his accounting, the actual “rise” for ordinary members will be about £3 a week rather than the £6 indicated in the report. This is how he sees it: A member who has no children of “deductible” age pays £73 2s on his salary increase of £3OO. In addition, he pays social security contributions amounting to £22 10s. His additional superannuation costs him £55, and he loses travelling expenses averaging about £5 (if he does not travel by air). This means that his extra £3OO has shrunk to £144 Bs. A member with four young children is not much better off, for he would receive only £172 10s. These figures pre-suppose that the private members concerned have no other source of income. If they do, their gains would be correspondingly lower. Ministerial Loss

Ministers with portfolio are recommended to receive a salary increase (on paper) of £3OO. On their new salary rate of £2BOO. the increase would be taxed at between 9s and 10s in the pound, which means that they would be left with about £l5O. They would still have to pay £55 in extra superannuation, and would be faced with the loss of the tax-free £lOO from their expense account.

The Prime Minister (Mr Nash), naturally, pays more income tax than any other member of the House. His salary places him in the highest taxation bracket, which means that he pays 13s 6d in the pound on the extra £5OO recommended by the commission. After other deductions, worked out on the lines of those of the other members, he would receive an increase not of £5OO but of £lO7 10s.

Those who demurred at the proposal to pay Mr Nash £4250 a year for his work as Prime Minister might be mollified on realising how much of this goes back into the country’s coffers through Mr Nordmcyer’s department. In any case, the New Zea-

land Prime Ministerial salary is a pittance compared with the £A14,350 received by Mr Menzies as Prime Minister of Australia. Gin Bill In spite of persistent suggestions that the gin industry in New Zeland will not be set up this year and that the Distillation Amendment Act will be held over, it is learned that the bill will probably be introduced this week. It is a massive piece of legislation, believed to contain about 127 clauses. It is designed to clear away the cobwebs of more than 50 years. It has to go before Cabinet before being introduced. As it failed to get so far last week, the inference is that it will reach the House on Tuesday. It is believed that excise will be reduced considerably from the 15s at present payable on a bottle. Sales tax of 4s 6d a bottle is likely to remain; but arrangements may be made to see that New Zealand gin has its chance on overseas markets. ’’Lolita” Still Queried The handling of the best-selling novel, “Lolita,” by Vladimir Nabokov, may provide guidance for a revision of the Indecent Publications Act. Under the act, even if the Customs Department approves the restricted sale of the book, the Police Department may independently decide to make the volume the subject of a prosecution. This mighty be settled by a conference between the departments concerned, possibly with the Attorney-General (Mr Mason) having the final say. Some officials believe that the Indecent Publications Act is not definite enough, and that it would be better for booksellers and others if somebody or some committee had the authority to issue a complete ban. The advisory committee, though of high literary standing, has the power at present only to make a recommendation. A system similar to that which seems to work quite well for films has often been suggested. Here a censor surveys the product and gives a decision which is subject to appeal. To read the mass of literature offering for entry into New Zealand would be a mighty task. Then again, a film can be cut and rejoined; but the excision of parts of a novel would tend to destroy the whole book. Value Of Accuracy Certain younger Government members have been advocating the need for “a Government radio news service, direct to the listener, hour by hour,” in the words of Mr A. J. Faulkner (Government, Roskill). Enlarging on this theme in the House last week, Mr J. G. Edwards (Government, Napier) said that accuracy was apt to be lost in transmission through newspaper channels. Mr Edwards then launched a highly abusive attack on a certain news service, which he named, and which he described as “little, spurious, inaccurate.” His attack was directed at one particular story, which he said had been put out by the service he named, and which he alleged was misleading. Mr Edwards committed the very “crime” with which he was charging the press: he had failed to check his sources. The story complained of was not written by the news agency he had named. Within half an hour of speaking Mr Edwards was appraised of his mistake. He acknowledged it. and apologised to the man who told him, who was an officer of the service. This correction has not been made publicly, however, and the original statement, which was broadcast, has been allowed to stand. Rivalry In Aircraft While the Fokker Friendship and the Handley Page Herald fight out their duel for the Government’s approval to replace the Douglas Dakota as New Zealand’s second-string internal airliner, two other aircraft are competing for a share in the Defence vote. They are the Canadair Argus and the Avro Shackleton. Both are four-engined aircraft of the orthodox piston type and both have been developed as maritime reconnaissance and submarine hunter-killer planes. The Shackleton visited New Zealand a few months ago; the Argus is here at present, showing its paces as a candidate to replace some of the Whitby-class frigates which have been “pencilled in.” The Minister of Defence (Mr Connolly) said recently that four Argus aircraft could be purchased for the price of one Whitby frigate. Stated as an equation, the proposition is now: £4.000,000 = one Whitby frigate=?four Argus aircraft = eight Shackletons. The Shackleton, fully equipped, costs exactly half as much as the bigger but not noticeably faster or longer-ranged Argus, which carries a crew of 15 against the Shackleton’s 10. It is noted that New Zealand, the last country to operate the famous old Sunderland flyingboats, has built up the flying-boat base at Lauthala Bay, Fiji, to peak efficiency, and is also looking at the American Martin Mariner flying-boat as a possibility to replace the Sunderland. The landplanes may not yet have won the day.