The Press SATURDAY, JULY 6, 1968. Parliamentary Salaries

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31724, 6 July 1968, Page 12

The Press SATURDAY, JULY 6, 1968. Parliamentary Salaries

The 7 J per cent increase recommended by the Royal Commission is less than that required to maintain the 1964 relationship of the salaries of members of Parliament either to wage-earners in New Zealand or to Parliamentarians in other countries. The last commission on New Zealand Parliamentary salaries reported in September, 1964. Between that time and the October-December quarter last year, the latest period for which figures are available, award wages rose 11 per cent Many new awards have been issued since December last year, so that even without a general wage increase this year Parliamentarians were due for an increase of more than 11 per cent Admittedly, not all sections of the community have had an increase of 11 per cent in their incomes in the last four years. Many farmers’ incomes have fallen in that period; but Parliamentarians, like others on salaries, did not fare as well as fanners in the boom years of 1950-51 or 1963-64. By international standards, the New Zealand back-bencher was not badly paid in 1964 when his salary was raised to £2150 ($4300). At that time the Australian Commonwealth paid its representatives in Parliament £A2750, equivalent to £NZ22OO at the 1964 rate of exchange. The Australian figure has since been increased to SA7OOO. Assuming they accept the 7j per cent increase now recommended, New Zealand members of Parliament will be paid $4650 —$2350 less than their opposite numbers across the Tasman. It is not important in itself that our Parliamentarians should be able to keep up with the Canberra Joneses; but the comparison suggests that Australian members of Parliament enjoy a much higher standard of living than ours do. Most of the able men in New Zealand who might be interested in a political career are already earning more than $4650: few of them are prepared to reduce their standard of living to enter politics. To their credit, the members of Parliament agreed last year to ask the Royal Commission to defer its report—and hence their own salary increases—for a year. This self-imposed salary freeze has been rewarded by a somewhat cheeseparing recommendation, possibly framed with a mistaken regard for popular opinion. Had the commission recommended a substantial increase—say, 20 per cent—it would have given Parliament the opportunity of deferring part of this increase until after the next General Election. Present members of the House of Representatives would have received some recompense for their self-denial of the last year, and both parties would have been helped in their future recruitment of candidates. This penny-wise, pound-foolish Roval Commission has done less than justice to today’s Parliamentarians, and probably deprived future electorates of better representatives.