THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1932. ECONOMY IN PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21164, 22 April 1932, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1932. ECONOMY IN PARLIAMENT.

Some members of the House of Representatives have vehemently opposed that portion of the National Expenditure Adjustment Bill which deals with their own salaries and honoraria, and what they have said should be given quiet heed by the country employing them, on their own application, in this particular sphere of national service. They seem to have forgotten some important things. Scarcely a reference has been made to the unusual times and the motive that prompted the setting up of the National Expenditure Commission. Instead, the members of the commission have been called hard names, and that part of their report which relates to the cost of Parliament has been described as an insult to members. This line of attack is as difficult to follow as it was easy for members to take. Why should the machinery of government bo immune from inspection and overhaul with a view to promoting its economical running, particularly at a time like the present? Members could hardly expect the cost of managing national affairs to be exempt from investigation in these circumstances. Indeed, the country has a right to look to Parliament for the keeping of expenditure under this head -within bounds. That expenditure has been mounting to a noticeable extent. The annual appropriations for it, taking the two years 1914-15 and 1931-32 as a oasis of comparison and making qualifications required to validate the comparison, show an increase of £13,545. On the face of it, that increase calls for inquiry, and there was nothing derogatory to the dignity of members in making it. The only real ground for complaint about it is that Parliament should itself have kept a stricter hand on this expenditure, instead of allowing it to get out of hand to even the smallest extent. . There has been, for instance, an undue increase in the number of permanent appropriations, the effect of which has been a dangerous Icosening of Parliament's control of expenditure. Instead of girding at the commission, appointed under provisions of its own creating, the whole House should have welcomed the dopg for it of a needful job that it should have had courage and sagacity enough to do for itself. Within the terms of its order of reference, which conveyed an instruction "to review and report on the public expenditure in all its aspects, to indicate the economies that might be effected . . . and

j generally to make recommendations Ito the Government for effecting j forthwith all possible reductions," i the commission inevitably dealt with I legislative salaries and honoraria, jits suggestion that the size of Parliament be reduced, was naturally made as one possible means of savj ing. Justificat ion for this suggesj tion is found in the fact that, if the | number of members in the. British | House of Commons bore, the same I ratio to the population of Great Britain as the membership of the New Zealand House of Representatives does to the population of this 'country, the House of Commons would have a membership of well over two thousand, whereas its actual membership is less than a third of that number. No drastic reduction in strict accordance with that ratio is suggested, but some reduction would be justified. It is certainly not ' the fact that an increase of numbers means better work: there is ground for belief that the contrary rbtains, and some reduction would be probably accompanied by an increase in efficiency. On the question of salaries, it, was surely needless to emphasise so pointedly the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire. NoI body would care, to dispute, the principle. All that is relevant in that connection is that the labourer should be really worthy. Nor, in ordinary circumstances, would there be any wish to be niggardly toward those who devote themselves to the country's business. But the times demand that costs be closely watched and expenditure curtailed, lost there be waste or leakage. In examining the vote for the Legislative Department, the commission found, in accordance with the opinion of the Economy Committees of 1921-22 and 1930, that both Houses were extravagantly staffed. All opinion so definitely and repeatedly expressed car not be light ly (lis-{ missed. Tlvs is here cited as a case in point ; in no avenue of ex- j penditure on Parliament, whatever i its nature, c :.n the country afford j avoidable outlay. In the discussion on the clause of i

the bill that dealt with members' salaries and honoraria there was manifest a difference of reasons for opposition. On the principle of objections to all reductions in salaries and wages, this particular reduction was opposed by some; others declared the usual emoluments to be inadequate ; i third argument, was that, whatev.sr be the position at present, a Id per cent, "cut," applied now in further decrease of an honorarium ; lready reduced, would make it impossible for some memtiers to perform their duties. Hut the recoinnjeiidations of the commission, made n detail, impressively support the ( pinion that many items of expenditu e are capable of reduction without impairing the. cfliciency of the. woi k that members are elected to do It may be that, with the passing < f the years, custom has tended to Make heavier and still heavier den ands on members, demands that i ntail personal expense : but this is no justification for a national expenditure beyond reasonable limits. To break with customary practice must be deemed essential, if it st; nd in the way of necessary economy.