Cost of Parliament

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 160, 2 April 1931, Page 11

Cost of Parliament

Sir, —I notice that Mr.' Forbes has presented a return to the House showing how much the present session cost during the first seventeen days. It would be interesting to learn just how much of this expenditure is of a permanent nature which" must be paid whether Parliament is sitting or not. Furthermore, it will be remembered that the sum of £15,000 quoted is £lOOO less than the total amount of Ministers’ travelling expenses for the last financial year. I suggest that another return. should be presented to the House showing the saving to the country effected by keeping the Ministers at home.—l am, etc., ECONOMY. March 31, 1931.

Sir, —The letter in your issue of April 1, .“Parliamentary Salaries,” brings up two points deserving to be stressed. There is no doubt that our Parliamentary machine is too expensive for us. We should have about thirty members for our population of one million and a half, instead of eighty. Great Britain has only six hundred and fifteen members representing twenty-nine millions (the total electoral roll of England, " Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). There is no doubt that the ten per cent, “cut” is not an adequate sacrifice in the ease of our members of Parliament in these special circumstances. Some could afford to waive their Parliamentary salary in its entirety until the country has recovered; others could at_ least forgo a very large proportion of it. Cases of , undue hardship could be dealt with on their merits, as we have been taught! Thinking people from one end of New Zealand to the other are longing for some such evidence of good faith on the Eart of our legislators, be they labelled liberal, Reform or Labour. Everyone is talking politics at the moment, some with bitterness, some with contempt, but all with distrust. Have we, then, created a Frankenstein monster Lo mock and torture us? Will no one rise to the occasion and restore good faith? — I am, etc., WATCHER. April 1, 1931.