THE The New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1879.

New Zealand Herald, Issue XVI, 3 December 1879, Page 4

THE The New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1879.

The principle of paying the members of the Legislature is getting into bad odour, will get into worse, and ultimately be abolished, unless the matter be placed on a better footing. The disreputable proceeding of last session, when members look their two hundred guineas for a month's work, or rather tho pretence of work, is not forgotten, and has by no moans raised the Legislature in public estimation. If payment is to be retained, there should be a radical change ; it should not come up every session, but should be dealt with by bill in a permanent fashion, and we are glad therefore, that Major Atkinson lias brought in a mcasuro for the purposes. We must confess that we are not enamoured of the system of payment. Many a man seeks a seat in Parliament attracted by the salary, but it would be infinitely preferablo if the honor alone evoked the desire to be a representative of the people. Unfortunately, the number of candidate to whom the pay is no consideration is but limited, and hence its abrogation would throw representation into the hands of a class. There is no help for it, therefore, but to continue tho system, and endeavour so to remodel it as to render it as little obnoxious as possible. It seems to us that the object of the bill

of the Treasurer :3 one which takes it out ! of the category of ordinary bills, and that j ' it should, therefore, be dealt with in a j different manner. It is not desirable that the principle should be passed for an indefinite period, but that it should be limited—passed, say, for six years—and I the constituencies thus have the power of review. It can no doubt be urged that the constituences can always return a number of members pledged to its abolition, but its repeal would be more difficult than by the refusal to renew such a bill as we advise, which had expired by effluxion of time. The former would be like attempting to get butter out of a dog's throat. We do not know how circumstances or public opinion might alter, and a change could be effected with much greater ease by the adoption of the method which we propose. The fact that members could have the indecency to take two hundred guineas for a month's work, is a strong reason in favour of our contention ; and we trust, therefore, that the Treasurer will so amend his bill as to

give it only a limited duration. No harm could possibly be done, because it could always be renewed for a further period. There is a vast difference between passing the sum annually and affirming the payment for an indefinite period, and the course we suggest seems to be that via media in which true wisdom is supposed to consist. There are many reasons why the Legislative Council should be excluded from the benefits of the bill, but the effect would be to impair the position of the Lower House, and give it, relatively, an inferior status to that of the Legislative Council, which is itself sufficient to dispose of all the reasons why the Council should not be paid. It would not do to let it look down on the Assembly. There is another respect in which tho Treasurer's bill seems capable of amendment—nay, absolutely requires it. It provides that a. deduction shall be made from the pay of each member for every day he shall be absent from tho House more than five days, according to the proportion which the period bears to the duration of the session and tho amount of the pay, illness and the Speaker's certificate of the absence being necessary barring the penalty. Supposing this plan to be desirable, it would evidently be quite ineffective. Members would take very good care to save their five days, and the Speaker would be so little obdurate that his corticate would not be difficult of attainment. Then again, it is more than doubtful whether such an unpleasant duty should devolve on the Speaker; whether it might not give him a power he should not possess, and impair the very important position he occupies. His task would be a very invidious-one. He would either do his duty and experience unpleasant consequences or he would neglect it, that he might escape them. After all, a Speaker is but flesh and blood. We think that, if the opinion of Mr. O'Rorke be taken, he will be found adverse to the proposal. Again, what is to constitute absence ? Is it to be understood that that member is present who just shows his face aud vanishes ? There is a good deal of this sly work at the present time, and the effect of Major Atkinson's proposal would be, that a member could bo absent for five days, put in an appearance on the sixth, then take further leave, and so oa, ad infinitum, as long as the session lasted.

It appears to us that the better plan would be for lion, members to be paid for their daily attendance, in the same way that the directors of many public companies arc paid. By that means the five days limit of absence would be got rid of, and regularity of attendance more effectually enforced. It is notorious that many of the members perform their legislative duties with a strict regard to their own convenience. On the occasion of important debates, if there be no party conflict, a thin house is frequently seen, and especially is this true when finance forms the subject of discussion. It is no secret that the mass of the Estimates have been passed with little or no debate, and by barely a quorum of the House. A system of pay by the day would, however, be inoperative, unless some means were applied to test the appearance of lion, members, and this difficulty would not be easy to overcome because of their resistance. If the roll were called at the opening of the House at the commencement of the evening sitting and at its close, very few tisli would get through the meshes of the net. But a pretty outcry would be the result of an attempt llmi to mend the bill. There would be indignant ineiuiries as to whether members were to be treated like a pack of schoolboys; whether it was consonant with the dignity of legislators : and whether such an imputation that they were not to be trusted could be accepted. Yet as regards attendance members are not to be trusted, never have been, and never will be, and thin some check of the kind is required. A considerable number of members earn their pay very indifferently with their constituents at too great a elistance to keep an eye on them. We are very certain that as it stands the bill of the Treasnrer will do very little to improve the attendance of hon. members, and that unless some such plan be adopted as wo have sketched out they will continue to earn their pay on much the same ea3y terms they do at ' present. With such short sessions they should the better fulfil tho expectations of their constituents, but they never will until they are compelled.