Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 5632x7168 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

PRACTICAL ECONOMY
Among the names suggested for the
new anti-Socialist combination which is
to succeed the Town and C'ountry Poll
tial Federation is the Leonomy Party.
Whether or not it be so styled it is to
be hoped that economy will be in the
forefront of its programme. And not
merely economy in general. Its economy,
we hope, will commence ct the top, with
Parliament itself. Tasmauia does not
need a State Parliament of 4S members,
30 in the Louse of Assemb:y, and 18 in
the Legislative Council. aolf would be
ample. To cut Parliament down by 50
per cent. would give 15 members for tho
Assembly and nine for thu Council. But
as in any such redistribution the five
constituencies which elec; the members
of the House of Assembly, and also of the
House of Representatives would probably
be adopted for the Council: retaining
the Council franchise of ccurse, the most
convenient numbers would be 15 and 10.
At present Tasmania has a state mem
ber of Parliament for every 700 income
tax payers. Surely one to 1400 would
sullice.
There is widespread complaint at the
average of the I'arliamentavan standard.
It the triennial crop were thinned out
it is reasonable to presume that the
quality would be improved It is so
in nature. Why not in Parliminent? Many
of the electors are sick and tired of the
party system, its self seeking, and
its results. The smaller a Parliament
the easier it should be to v.can it from
the party system. But if tLat should be
impossible the party system would be
no worse in an Assembly of 15 than in
one of 20. A House dividtd into eight
against seven would give much the same
results as if the numbers were 16 to 14
or 15 each. Bht with this difference,
and not an unimportant difference-at
half the cost. A Parliament of 15 and
1Q would open up more than one avenue
of economy. If it did away with party
politics-though we are by no means
sanguine on the point-there would be
general satisfaction. If the party system
should be retained then at least there
would te, the advantage cf a monetary
saving. Either way something will be
gained. Nothing will be lost except to
some of the second and thhrd rate poli
ticians. To be rid of them would of
itself be a blessing.
A reduction of Parliament by half
would be a substantial sarmg both in
members' salaries and in Parliament's
time, talk, and expense. As regards
salaries there would be a saving in two
ways. With a Parliament of 25 as
against 48, 23 salaries, or £6900 a year
and the value of free travelling and
other privileges would be sam ed. Again
it would be possible to save on the bal
ance by differentiating between the 25
members ahd regrading thr.ir reminera
tion according to the sacmitice entailed.
It is absurd and inequitatle that the
member who lives at hobart should
draw the same as those who re
side' at Launceston or on the
far North-West or West Coast. The
Itobart resident gives only a few hours
of his time to his Parliamentary duties.
In the case of a northern member not
much of a week, while Parliament is
sitting, is left for attentlo'l to his own
. affairs. To the Hobart member Parlia
ment is a pleasant and profitable side
line. To the Northern member it involves
-a substantial degree of sacrifice. To
reduce Parliament by one half would
make the session shorter, and the ;d300
salary to a Northern member would re
present more than it does to-day. Cut
li the others down on a mil.age basis and
a not inappreciable economy could be
. effected. Then if both Holses sat as
one-as two orders in onA Chamber-one
staff would suffice. So long as the two
orders yoted separately-tnere would be
no fusion of their functions. Suitable
standing orders and the double division
list would enable the 'Legislative Coun
- ell to maintain its standing and author
5 ity as a House of Review. There need be
8 no' weakening either of Its status or of.
; its privileges. Will anyone have the
S25 so constituted and ordered would
not eatisfy the requirements of a coun
pie of hundred thousand people, and be
capable of spreading a revenue of two
and a half-millions. Far bigger concerns
a are managed-by a small'hboard of dir
a ectors, but then they are business un
i.dertaklngs and are handled by business
- men in a business way. Simiplify and
Y reduce Parliament to reasonalble pro
. portions and-it may be that with the
less time consumed in sessional at
tendance more business men will be at
tracted to political life. In any case if
the new I'arliament really means to eco.
nomise--and if the finances are to be
l stabllised it must do so-it should bq
i prepared to begin with iteqlf. Having
1 done that it c'n purue with . a clear
f~LttLsa»»» isyw-~ »<-wln«-, Haht
through the public services. There is
plenty of room for retrenchment, not by
the crude method of pexcentage reduc
tions, but by tre business-:ike process of
the:elimination of the superruous:job, by
reorganitation of drpartments. and by
arhalgamations. Every one per cent. sayv
ed over all the departments meansl
£15,000 less for the taxpayer to 1i5(l.
An all round selving of 5 per tcl.t. would
total £75,U00. To say that, economy and
substantial economy is impycsslle is a
confession of incapacity. 'lhe electors
should deal with it as such.
$