LEGISLATIVE COSTS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 192, 15 August 1931, Page 8

LEGISLATIVE COSTS

FEWER MEMBERS PROPOSED LOWERING OF THE CHARGES NEED FOE A FULL INQUIRY WELLINGTON, Aug. 13. The establishment of a Royal Commission to probe thoroughly the cost of government in New Zealand and to investigate particularly the desirability of reducing the membership of Parliament was suggested by Mr K. S. Williams (Reform, Bay of Plenty) in the House of Representatives yesterday. Mr Williams said the country was un. able to bear any burden of taxation greater than that proposed in the Budget and as the position of the national finances was going to be difficult next year, the whole cost of government should receive close attention. “We have 80 members of Parliament,” Mr TVilliams said, “and while I do not want to see any of them lose their seats, it has to be remembered that conditions of travel have been improving from year to year, making it easier for members to reach remote parts of their electorates. Members of county councils are doing their work for nothing, and if their position is to be looked into it is fair to the taxpayers that everything possible should be done to see if we could lower the number of members of Parliament and reduce overhead charges. Work of County Councils. Mr F. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino): IDo without town members! Mr Williams: Some of the county council people have enormous districts to travel through, and I think we should ask an outside body to investigate the position, not only in connection with Parliament, but also regarding government costs generally. Mr E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South): Does that apply to another place? Mr Williams: The taxpayers of New Zealand are responsible for the continued growth of expenditure. Everyone has been asking for something more, and when times were good they received a great deal of consideration and still asked for more. Now that conditions are bad, we should investigate the heavy load that is being laid upon taxpayers. The argument of Mr Williams did not find full favour with Mr H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East), who stated that when the population was but one-third of its present strength, the membership o f Parliament was the same as it was now. Voices: It was greater. Mr Armstrong: Yes, and if in the past the basis of representation was one of population, the tendency should be to increase rather than to reduce the membership. Town and Country. Mr Armstrong reminded the House that at the recent farmers’ conference at which the Leader of the Opposition had been present, the suggestion for a smaller Parliament had been made, and it was then urged that although interference should not be countenanced with country electorates, some of the town constituencies could be cut out. Mr R. McKeon (Labour, Wellington South): That’s the stuff. Mr Armstrong: Well, I want to say that members in city constituencies represent human beings, and when this is so, the basis of representation should be on men, women and children and not upon population of sheep and cattle. Mr Langstone: Don’t criticise. Mr Armstrong: I represent a constituency of intelligent people, and if I did not secure something like 6000 votes I would not win, but if I were to secure 2500 votes in some of the country constituencies, I should win my seat. Mr W. J. Polson (Independent, Stratford): Not in a straight-out issue. Mr Armstrong: I say that is wrong and undemocratic. Mr Polson: That would be a minority vote. Mr Armstrong: If there is to be any increase in representation, it should take place in places where most of the people live.