PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XII, Issue 2417, 28 July 1891, Page 2

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.

Tub proposal of the Government to change the principle on which Members of Parliament ha.v<* hitherto been remunerated, and at the same time to j greatly increase the amount paid to I each Member has come as a surprise to most people, and we do not think it will meet anything approaching general approval. Hitherto the payment made to Members has been veiled under a two-told disguise — firstly, the sum of ,£SO each session paid for expenses, and, secondly, the honorarium of £100 per session for loss of time in attending the meetings of Parliament. Thus Members of the House of Representatives receive £150 p«r session when one session is held in a year, but when a second session is held in the same year the honorarium is reduced by half, and for such second session only £100 is received. Considering that the honorarium was only reduced in the last Parliament; and that those who were candidates at the general election did so in full knowledge of the amount of the honorarium that they would be entitled to if elected, we think' the change is too hasty. The principle of paying Members as for services rendered — wages in short—does not commend itself to us, and looked at in this light the payment of £240 a year is altogether too high. Though the payment is to be made by month at the rate of £20 monthly, the average duration of Parliamentary sessions is about three months, or say fifteen weeks, and taking the latter period the payment is equal to £16 a week for the time the Members are engaged in the service of the country, and this is more than nine tenths of: the Members can earn in any other way whatever. It must be borne in mind that when Parliament is not in session the rank and file of the members go back to their farms and their merchandise, or to whatever occupation they may usually follow. This brings forward another question. The Ministers and one or two others that occupy official positions are occupied in their duties almost without intermission, in session and out, and under the new proposal their remuneration will be relatively less than that of non-official members. Consequently if the payment" of Members is increased, an increase in the payment of Ministers nvast almost necessarily follow. Had the proposal been to increase the remuneration of Ministers it would have been worthy of consideration, for .they receive less than their services in similar capacities to public companies or private firms would command. Parsimonious treatment of public servant* is a mistake, but we think that the present scale of payment of Members is sufficient in the present times, when the public expenditure is being cut down to the finest possible point. The proposed .increase is at the rate of £140 a year of one session, for besides the " salary " of £240 a year ths travelling expenses of Members which were formerly included in the allowance of £50 a session, are under the new arrangement to: be paii in addition to the salary. The argument that in the future second sessions in one year will be of frequent occurrence is the only one that should have any weight in the present state of the country's finances; and even if a second session were held every year, the present remuneration—£loo honorarium for the first session, £50 honorarium for the second session, and £50 each session for expenses—should be sufficient. Membership of Parliament is not held to be an office of [ profit—it will be a bad time if it should ever come to be regarded as such. Every appearance of making any payment to members to partake of the nature of a quid p?'o quo for. their services has always been most carefully avoided, and those payments have been looked upon as being made simply for the purpose of enabling Members to attend Parliament without being actually " money out of pocket " by doing so. We trust that Parliament will not agree to the proposal without due consideration,