PARLIAMENTARY SALARIES.

Evening Star, Issue 20253, 14 August 1929, Page 8

PARLIAMENTARY SALARIES.

Like Mr Bumble, who sold himself to Mrs Corney for “ six teaspoons, a pair of sugar tongs, and a milk pot, with a small quantity of second-hand furniture and twenty pounds in money,” a great number of our parliamentarians have long held the conviction that they “went cheap” when they wedded themselves to a political career. IVe have not heard of one of them who has over declared the opinion that the suggestion, whiph has now become an annual one, that higher salaries should bo paid to them was a presumptuous and ill-founded idea. It is the one subject on which there would appear to be, .naturally, a perfect unanimity iu Parliament. It is certain that tho New Zealand legislator would be better off if bis political lot bad been cast in some other countries of the Empire. In New South Wales he might have been almost twice as well off. New South Wales politicians, in the past, have done better for themselves very often than they have done for their employers; their example is not one to be followed as a model; but it can be conceded that the salary of the New Zealand legislator is on the low side. It was meant to be £SOO for members of the House of Representatives and £350 for members of the Legislative Council when the Civil List was amended in 1920, and these amounts were reduced, almost immediately afterwards, to £450 ami £315, by the Public, Expenditure /Adjustment Act. There has been a mild agitation—nothing undignified or aggressive about it—in recent years to get those “ cuts ” restored, generally with something over, but tho times have been unfavourable. Mr Coates, expressed his willingness to fulfil tho desire “at a suitable time, when tho country could afford it.” Sir Joseph Ward, waited on by a deputation- during the short session last December, was no less sympathetic to the principle. It was hoped that something might be done during the present session, but tho intervening period has shown a deficit of more than half a million in the country’s accounts, and the time for revival of an ancient request is not best chosen when that has to be met. Increase of salaries for parliamentarians was not a plank in the platform of any political party at last year’s elections, unless it was included indirectly in a clause of the Labour Party’s manifesto, which read as follows: —“At every opportunity it has protested in Parliament against tho wage reductions and salary cuts, and the treatment of the members of the Public Service whose salaries were unjustly reduced when the Public Expenditure Adjustment Act was passed. On its return as the Government the Labour Party will take immediate steps to restore tho 1914 standards, and to establish a basic wage sufficient to ensure an adequate standard of living.” The Labour Party was not returned as tho Government, and that grievance which tho Public Service -shares with politicians and representations which are now being made concerning the basic wage make their own complications for fulfilment of the politicians’ claim. Special efforts required for several thousands of unemployed, who without them would have neither salaries'nor wages of- any kind, make a still graver complication. It is not surprising that, when a deputation waited on Sir Joseph Ward again this week to discuss the long standing question, members were divided in a new degree, not as to the principle at stake, but,as to the reasonableness or expediency of pressing it to an issue in the present unfavourable circunfslatices. The pub-, lie is unlikely to look upon improved salaries for politicians as the most urgent need of the times. They can vote tho additions to themselves if they have the mind, but some members may enjoy them longer, when they come, :f no impatience for receiving them is displayed.