THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1900.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11434, 26 July 1900, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1900.

The House has now before it two Bills likely to cause considerable discussion. One is the Governor's Salary and Allowances Bill and the other the Ministers' Salaries and Allowances Amendment Bill. The first of these measures passed the second reading on Tuesday night by 45 to 15, but the discussion showed that there was considerable division amongst tho Government supporters on the subject. The Bill provides simply for the re-enactment of certain sections of the Act of 1873 on the subject, which Act was repealed in 1887, when a vigorous "roar for retrenchment" resounded eover the colony. Section 2of the Act of 1873 provided that tho salary of the Governor should be £5000; section 3 that a sura of £1500 should be paid as " an allowance in lieu of payment of the salaries and expenses of His Excellency's establishment, including £300 as the salary of the clerk of the Executive Council. Section 4 declared that a sum of £1000 should be paid annually to the Governor for travelling expenses. Section 10 provided that.any officer administering the Government should be entitled to the full allowances of a Governor. In 1887, in consequence of the aforesaid "roar for retrenchment," tho £1000 for travelling allowance [ lowance was cut off with the £1500 I a year foi the maintenance 'of the establishment, tho salary itself remaining at £5000. Practically there was a reduction on the Governor's salary of £2500, and this it is proposed hereafter to pay again. It was stated during the discussion by Captain Russell, that he knew that every Governor of the colony for the past fifteen or twenty years had spent double the amount of his salary, and that they had left the colony poorer men than they were when they came to it. The Premier, in replying on the discussion, summed up tho whole matter by saying that it was not right that a Governor should be called upon to draw upon his private means to support his position, and a democracy should not be put under such an obligation. The Governor of New Zealand has a certain position to maintain as the representative of the Crown, and the colony should pay him sufficient to maintain that position. The colonists virtually require that he shall occupy a- certain station, 'arid perform certain duties and functions, and we are acting shabbily if we pay a salary, insufficient for.the purpose, and requiring the holder oi the office to draw upon his own private means. . The Bill, we have :no doubt, will. become law. ' .

•The proposals made" by the Government in ; the : Ministers' Salaries

"aid Allowances Amendment BUI are likely to strain the ties of allegiance of ; some: of "their followers to a greater extent : than i,' the Bill as \to the Governor's salary. '■] Indeed, it will require apparently some force and skill to overcome the conscientious scruples which many members entertain on the subject of increasing the salaries of Ministers. It has been suggested that the best way to soothe these sensitive consciences would be to increase the honorarium of members at the same time, and then all parties would be satisfied ana happy, and contentment would reign throughout Parliament. The Act which regulates the matter.;at present is the Ministers' •■■ Salaries and Allowances Act, 1887, ■ under which salaries can only be appropriated for the Premier and five other Ministers, the total being £5000 per annum.. The Premier had £1000 and the other Ministers (five in number) £800, with a house allowance each of £200 per annum. The new Bill proposes that the Premier shall receive £1750, besides a house and travelling expenses, and there are to be eight other Ministers, each drawing £1250, besides haying a house or house allowance. This is a big rise, unprecedented, we think, in these colonies, or anywhere else. The prime argument put forward for the increase of the number of Ministers is stated in the preamble to the Bill, namely, that "the Departmental and other work of the General Government has greatly increased, and it is therefore expedient that the number of Ministers to whom salaries are appropriated should be increased." We think that many will be of opinion that the increase of the Ministerial work does not warrant an increasa from six Ministers to nine. It is argued that Departments have been created, such as the Advances to Settlers Act. But that and other Departments have been created, and are regulated by statute, and do not require Ministerial supervision. Besides, if the work has increased in some Departments, it has decreased in others. At one time, the Native Minister was the most important in the Cabinet. He is novr-aot wanted at all. The Minister" for Lands should have very little to do. There is no proposal to alter the system of administration, and the waste lands are almost all taken up except in the province of Auckland, which has been somewhat neglected. It is argued that a Minister should be paid as large a sum as a man who has control of a large mercantile establishment, such as a bank or an insurance company. This contention must be demurred! to on several grounds. It is foreign to the spirit of British political administration that Ministerial office should give opportunity of making money. If the average colonial Minister were to be paid £1450 per annum, and were to hold office for, say, eight or ten years, he would certainly "make a pile" out of his salary. Then, as to the question of the worth of the man. It might be invidious to name any of the present Ministry as an example, but it would be quite safe to say that we have known Ministers in New Zealand who have held office for years continuously, and whose services in any capacity nobody would reckon worth £1450 per annum.

There is also a serious objection to the increase in the number of Ministers. The number was reduced in 1887 because the number of members of the House wa3 reduced, and it is not now proposed to increase the number of members. It is obvious that the number of salaried Ministers should bear some proportion to the number of members of the House of Representatives, or else it cannot be said that we have a free Parliament. If this Bill passes, there will be in the House of Representatives eight Ministers, and as there are only 70 European members, the Ministerial body; will amount to a considerable, proportion of the House. If the Australian Commonwealth were to have the same number of Ministers in proportion to population, it would have 72 instead of the seven which the Commonwealth Bill considers sufficient. Great Britain would have 450 Ministers. If the House cf Commons were to have the same proportion of Ministers on the benches as our House of Representatives is to be adorned with, room would have- to be found for a phalanx of over 70 gentlemen. , The Bill, however, is likely to pass, but in all probability a sop will have to bo made to members in the. way of an allowance for session expenses.