POLITICAL DISHONESTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8631, 29 July 1891, Page 3

POLITICAL DISHONESTY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—When the electors returned our members of Parliament, they did so, fully believing that honest efforts would be made in the direction of retrenchment. At first, people were pleased with the prospect of having some reduction in our extravagant expenditure, but it would appear from the latest news from Wellington, that the reductions were only made with the view of transferring the money so recklessly spent into another direction equally reckless and unwarrantable. Men, who when on the hustings > denounced the corruption of the late Ministry, and who, in order to secure votes, pledged themselves to reform, are now deliberately breaking those promises by bringing in a Bill to raise their honoraria from £150 to £240, to reinstate the former salaries of Ministers, and create another paid portfolio, thus imposing an additional £9000 or £10,000 a year on the already too costly service. These are the very men who, on economical grounds, deliberately proposed to break faith with the bondholders by reducing the rate of interest. Yet, in almost the same breath, they make another proposal equally dishonest. Not content with raising their salaries, they propose that the payment shall be made monthly, so as to enable them to live by politics, thus degrading themselves to the level of professional politicians. The excuse is that if two sessions are held in one vear only one honorarium is to be paid, but as two sessions in one year is an event of rare occurrence, that plea is scarcely an honest one, and as it is a well known fact that many members are not returned a second time the probable disappointed ones wish to secure themselves against loss by having their salaries paid monthly. How artless and ingenious Mr. Pinkerton was when he said that owing to expenses and various charges £240 a year would only be equal to £3 a week in business. If our legislators were no better in business than they are in politics £3 a week would be a good deal more than thev are worth. When the bondholders hear o"f the proposed rise they will say, and justly so, that if the colony can stand it, can well afford to pay the interest it bound itself to pay. Capitalists and landholders are denounced as " thieves" and "social pests," but what will be said of those who, having given utterance to such sentiments, attempt to saddle a country with a diminishing population with a useless burden of several thousands a year. Ihe Atkinson Ministry was not the best or most economical, but if the honoraria and salaries are raised and the number of members increased—which is by no means unlikely if we are to judge by the present proceedmgs—we shall have little cause to be thankful for the exchange.— am, &c. R. W. Roche.