Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 8th., 1929. PARLIAMENTARY SALARIES

Greymouth Evening Star, 8 November 1929, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 8th., 1929. PARLIAMENTARY SALARIES

’pHE Appropriation Bill will contain provision for a bonus to members of Parliament, bringing each salary to' a minimum of £5OO. Such was the text of a message published in yesterday’s “Star” from our Parliamentary correspondent. This resolve to vote themselves the restoration of the ‘cut’ follows the rejection, recently, of a similar request from public service employees, 1 who were told that the state of national finances did not permit such concession, and

that economy was necessary in administration. It is doubtful if public respect for the Parliamentarians will be enhanced by the M.’s P.’s generosity to themselves. Economy should begin at home, and, be practised by those upholding its advantages, and the necessity for it. Nominally, the bonus is for this year only, but the payment will ! probably prove permanent, and may be increased, later. Even those who are not opposed to the principle of increasing Parliamentary salaries, must feel that now was not an opportune time for the Members to press for a bonus. The closing hours of the session and the dispersal of the House until next June, prevent any counterdemand for the time being, but, next session;, it will be difficult for Members to say nay to others, when they have shouted aye to themselves. It is claimed that because this session has been extended, the M.’s P. deserve more payment. Whose fault was it that the House had to sit so long? Nobody’s, but the Members themselves, who, wasted public time and money by unnecessary eloquence. Now, they set forth this misuse of privilege as a reason for extra personal remuneration.

It must be admitted that a good case, on general grounds, could be made out for increasing Members’ especially if election to the House is to be available to those who have no private income, and are dependent on their own earnings. It is the national desire that entry to the House should be as wide to the poor as to the rich. Heavy election expenses have to be incurred, residence at Wellington during the session is added cost, public and private societies seek donations, and the Members’ travelling bill is seldom light. It can be readily believed that £450 a year leaves little margin for the M. P.’s personal use, after meeting the forementioned costs. With the exception of South Australia, New Zealand pays less to M.’s P. than does any Australian Legislature. If a high standard of personal honour is to be maintained, —anc New Zealand’s Parliamentarians in this matter are beyond criticism —possible outside temptation, owing to financial pressure, should be minimised.

Whether the Members of Parliament should be paid higher annual salaries, with adequate provision for superannuation, is not now the matter at issue. The real question many in the Dominion will be asking, to-day, is whether the Members, after the action towards the public service employees, were justified in voting themselves a bonus. We believe that were a national vote taken, the Noes would have it.

A message from our Wellington correspondent, this afternoon, gave the amqunt of the bonus as £lOO, which adds to the force of public criticism.