THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1982. Electorate support for M.P.s

Press, 13 July 1982, Page 16

THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1982. Electorate support for M.P.s

The proposal that taxpayers should meet the cost of electorate secretaries for members of Parliament will get a chilly reception in the present climate of a wageprice freeze and cuts in Government spending. The proposal is not without merit, however, and should not be discarded without further study. ' The member . of Parliament for Christchurch Central. Mr G. W. R. Palmer, renewed at the week-end the call he first made more than a year ago for electorate assistance. Perhaps he considered the present review of Government spending an opportune time for further consideration to be given to the principles of the proposal. He certainly would be mindful that a group of members has put before Parliament’s Members’ Services Committee proposals for either a special allowance for electorate assistance or a tax deduction for members if they themselves were to pay the cost of an electorate secretary. The suggestion is not exclusively Mr Palmer’s; nor is it exclusively that of one party. Several members of Parliament have. put forward similar proposals in recent years, publicly or privately. The reason put forward has been universal and apolitical: a concern that, as things stand, members of Parliament cannot do properly the job they are elected to do. The job of members of Parliament is onerous and very demanding on their time. In Wellington, Parliamentarians must make the country’s laws and act as the public’s watchdogs on the Cabinet and the Public Service. The formal debates in Parliament are only the tip of the work in law-making. In select committees the members scrutinise and revise bills and .hear the submissions of interested parties. Almost all proposed laws go to a select committee and the work of these committees of the House has mushroomed. Timetables are tight and. take no account of how late Parliament sat the night before, or of the duties of members in their electorates. In their electorates the members must act as a kind of local Ombudsman, attending to their constituents’ interests, answering innumerable questions. They deal with Government departments on their constituents’ behalf, and they face requests to attend a full schedule of openings, closings, prize-givings, and annual meetings. The constituency work is important, not just because of the help given to individuals who are in need or in trouble, or puzzled by departmental

decisions or practices, but because it keeps the representatives in touch with public opinion. In recent years, the level of assistance for members while- in Wellington has improved. Much of the burden of initial research on bills before the House can be delegated to the parties' research units, provided by the taxpayer through the Legislative Department’s appropriation. Provision is also made for secretarial assistance in Wellington. For most backbenchers this means sharing one secretary between two members of Parliament. No such assistance is provided in electorates. Except in those instances where members meet the cost of an electorate secretary out of their own pockets, the burden falls on members' families, most often on a wife or husband. Those members who have engaged electorate secretaries at their own expense generally have done so either because they have no family to fill the role, or because the strain on the family was becoming too great. Mr Palmer suggests that a part-time secretary would be sufficient to remove these demands on family life. For most back-benchers, electorate secretaries would have work sufficient to occupy them between 10 hours and 15 hours a week. In city electorates a shared secretary could work for two or more members. The cost to the taxpayer of such a system would depend on whether office accommodation would be included, and whether transport costs in large rural electorates would be reimbursed. These and other factors require deeper study and might well be considered by the Members' Services Committee while weighing the proposals now before it. The cost of wages for part-time secretaries certainly could be kept below $1.5 million in today’s terms. This would be a modest expense if, as a result, members of Parliament were freed for the more important duties of attending directly to the problems and concerns of more of their constituents and of ensuring better laws. A fairly common opinion is that Parliament should wield more authority, that it should perform better than it does, that Parliamentarians should be thoroughly competent as well as being representative. If this is the public expectation of its members of Parliament, the electorate should be willing to see members get the kind of modest support that Mr Palmer and others recommend.