Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1927 MEMBERS’ SALARIES

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 September 1927, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1927 MEMBERS’ SALARIES

The renewal of the application by Members of the House of Representatives for an increase in salary, should be considered with out prejudice. It can scarcely be denied that the £450 a. year now paid is not enough for an efficient Member, but it is equally true that not all those now privileged to write M.11.R. after their names, render national service worth even half £450 per annum. As for many Members of the Legislative Council, their. £315 a year is an absolute gift, as much in the nature of a political pension as anything else. No suggestion, apparently, is made that Councillors should receive more, and any such proposal should be resisted.

At first glance, it does not appear, perhaps, that Members of the Lower House are badly paid. The Parliamentary session extends from four to five months only, and for most of the time, the House meets but four days weekly. In the earlier part of the session, at least, the sittings do not commence until 2.30 p.m., and with a dinner interval, usually close well before midnight. Towards the end, longer hours are necessary,—mainly because of earlier waste of time — but a fair estimate of the hours of the sittings would be about 600 for the whole session. No Member attends every sitting, and for the most part, few are called upon for much mental or other exertion whilst in the House. Summed up that way, especially as there are certain “concessions,” the salary of £450 may not appear to be inadequate, but there is another side to the picture. It is stated that the average Member cannot, obtain remunerative employment when Parliament is not sitting, as his time is taken upon the business of his constitu ency and other public affairs. More over he finds many calls on his purse from private and public sources, solely because he is an M.P. Living expenses, whilst in Wellington, are high, and other unavoid able outgoings indirectly connected with his Parliamentary position, help to increase his expenditure, so that what is left of his £450, is inadequate remuneration. There are of course some Members whose private incomes are large, and who do not feel the pinch. But it is not the national desire that poo»' men, whatever their polities, should be debarred from Parliament, sole ly because of such poverty. On the whole, a good ease can be made out for an increase of up to, say, £lOO a year. The amount should not be fixed by what is being paid in other countries, where circumstances may be different The country, too, must be just to itself, before being generous to its Parliamentarians, and in these days of financial stringency and fairly heavy taxation, it is not practicable to do all what is asked. However, it would be wrong to underpay the legislators, as if they are financially harassed, they might become subjected to temptations best kept from them. New Zealand has cause for pride at the high standard of personal honour and

integrity hitherto, maintained by the Members, and this is worth preserving. The rise in salary should be given, but with it should come the blunt declaration from the country that the recipients should show themselves worthy of the increased pay. On their performances so far during the present session, dismissal rather than salary-rise would be their lot, were they employed by the ordinary commercial establishment.