PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17283, 6 October 1919, Page 6

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.

The suggestion made for an increase in the payment to members of Parliament is not without significance. At all events, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition both discussed it on Friday night as a matter to be considered and dealt with during the present session. The electors will not be indisposed to concede that the increased cost of living falls as heavily on members of Parliament as on their constituents, but they may fairly ask whether the' public interest would not be served by considering a reduction in the number of members at the same time as an increase in the honorarium. It cannot be claimed that payment of members raises the tone or calibre of Parliament. Such an effect might conceivably result from a higher scale, but it.is doubtful whether Parliament intends to name such a sum as would tempt men of capacity to seek the opportunity of devoting themselves to the affairs of the State. A payment commensurate with the importance of the work entrusted to a member of Parliament, combined with a drastic " cut " in the number of seats, would probably meet with widespread approval. There are now 117 members in the two Houses, and most people will echo the opinion that the work

would be better done if half of them stayed at home. This, however, is not in contemplation. The intention apparently is to level up the present payment—£3oo to members of the House, and £200 to members of the Council meet the increased cost of living. The subject has evidently been in the minds of ' members of Parliament for some . time. Last year two small amend- '. ments to their advantage were buried away in the Appropriation Act. ' The first provided a fee for travelling to and from meetings of Parliament, with a minimum of £l, and the second assured members that if there is an interval between the dissolution of one Parliament and the election of another, as sometimes happens, salaries are to run on till polling-day. Adequate salaries and allowances to members of Parliament would not , be grudged if they drew to the Legislature the men best qualified to control the national business, but of that there is at present very little sign. 1 COST OF SOLDIERS' LAND. ♦ It is satisfactory to have Mr. Massey's assurance that over half a million acres of Crown land have been taken up by returned soldiers. This is about half the area settled, and, considering the difficulties which have attended the opening up of Crown land in war-time, represents a greater advance in genuine settlement than at one stage of the Department's operations appeared probable. But when Mr. Massey attempts to justify the amount ' spent on the purchase of private 1 estates he is on less safe ground. ' According to his own figures, an . acre of private land has been purl chased for every acre of Crown land i made available, and in spite of his . explanation the total expenditure - involved may justly be described as - "huge." The sum of £2,600,000 [ quoted by Mr. Massey apparently ' represents the amount spent under! - the Land for Settlements Act in aci quiring private estates. Mr. Guthl rie gave approximately the same I figure a few weeks ago, stating that , it represented the price of 201 i estates, comprising 262,737 acres, > but at the same time he mentioned 5 an expenditure p£ considerably over ? £1,000,000 under Section 3 of the 3 Discharged Soldiers' Settlement - Act, which authorises the State to

advance money against farms which soldiers may have negotiated for themselves. This is strictly a payment for private land, and allowance must be made for it in estimating the cost of settlement under the present methods. The provision for the purchase of individual farms has proved of great value to soldiers, but it would not be nearly so extensively used were it not for the scarcity of Crown land and fear of the inflated values of the estates the Government is purchasing for subdivision. In its essential features— the forcing up of values by competition among buyers, and the failure to promote new settlement—it is part of the private purchase system, and must be counted with it. The amount spent on private land is therefore approximately £4,000,000. It would be interesting to know the cost to the soldiers of the halfmillion acres of Crown land already settled. Nothing would more forcibly demonstrate the folly of spending £4,000,000 in the purchase of half a million acres of private land.