THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1902. THE COST OF GOVERNANCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11952, 29 April 1902, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1902. THE COST OF GOVERNANCE.

Whether in New Zealand or in Australia one of the most galling burdens which the tax-paying public of the colonies has to endure is the unweildy size and excessive cost of their artificially-inflated legislative bodies. There seems to be no limit to the number of Ministers, councillors, representatives and dependents who can become parasitic upon the body politic of an energetic and industrious colonial people and still less limit 'to the self-regulated payments which in one guise or another they can extort. Our own European population of little more than three-quarters of a million is burdened by so-called democratic methods to a degree which would excite us to indignant revolt were we able to ascribe it to an avowed and acknowledged autocracy. Apart from, our system of local self-go-vernment and of permanent departmental organisation we have an absurdly large Cabinet, which recently increased its already more than necessary number and more than lavish remuneration, and an overgrown Parliament, which is still adding to itself adipose legislative tissue and has signalled its recent sessions by an unwarranted raid upon the public Treasury. Such political diseases are apparently inherent to passing phases of colonial life, for to-day's cable messages inform us that the Federal politicians are organising to imitate in Melbourne the tactics so successfully engineered in Wellington. Having a wealthier Treasury under their care they do not propose, however, to be content with the small amount which temporarily satisfied the financial appetite of cur own Parliamentary patriots. They intend to make an effort to add £150 to their salaries. It goes without saying that they will devote to this effort an energy, eloquence and goodwill such as public affairs rarely command and that, being masters of the situation as long as the public remains indifferent, they will be able to convince themselves of their deservingness with very little difficulty. Mr. O'Connor, one of the ornamental members of the Federal Cabinet, who draws an administrative salary without the cares of a portfolio, has just explained to them that federation only costs the four millionsincluding women and babies—of federated citizens the trifling yearly sum of one shilling and twopence apiece, this being only a day's wages yearly for the average head of a small family or two days' wages yearly for the much-lauded citizen who has his quiver full. With' such encouragement, and with our New Zealand example, we may expect to hear from the Federal Parliament the modern politician's version of the ancient truth that the labourer is worthy of his hire. For what does a taxpayer exist if not to enrich his rulers ? Of what use is it to hold the key of the democratic moneycheat if the self-sacrificing politician is not to remember himself and his friends 1

But unfortunately for the Australian politician, though fortunately for the Australian taxpayer, the sudden increase of public expenditure caused by Federation has brought to the surface the underlying opinion of the average citizen as to the worth of politicians and the cost of governance. The result is that while the Federal Parliamentarians are canvassing one another in order to prepare the majority which will reward them according to their desires if not according to their merits, a very remarkable movement in favour ot administrative reform is sweeping over several of l he States and can hardly fail to make itself felt in the next Commonwealth elections. As is usual with all effective public agitations, it arose in the country districts as the spontaneous protest of the country taxpayers against needless waste and extravagance. South Australia, which is the most Anglo-Saxon of the Australian colonies, and in many respects the most practical and self-reliant, has already reduced the number of its State members of Parliament and State Cabinet Ministers by means of a Legislative Economies Act. The same question is becoming a leading one in New South Wales and has taken more definite shape in Victoria. In the last-named State, the suddenly powerful Reform League has rejected the offer of the Premier to introduce a Bill reducing the ninetyfive members of the State Assembly to eighty-one, and has put forward a platform which proposes to reduce

that membership by forty-sis, Ministers of the Grown to five and the salaries of both members and Ministers by one-third. Ninety per cent, of the Victorian local bodies have resolved in favour of the movement, which is being greatly assisted by the reduction in State revenue caused by the taking over of several important departments by the Commonwealth. In New South Wales, which has one hundred and twentyfive members in her paid State Assembly, there is very similar, though less advanced, agitation. The movement to raise Federal Parliamentary salaries thus comes at an opportune moment, from the point of view of the general public, though Federal politicians may well wish that the reaction against such impositions were less pronounced.

The effect of this Australian political reform movement may not be marked in New Zealand until the inevitable recurrence of industrial and commercial depression reminds us that all needless and useless public expenditure must be checked in the interest of the overburdened taxpayer. That this colony will then act in the practical manner which should always distinguish its methods cannot be questioned, for it docs not submit to mismanagement because it approves mismanagement, but because of the indifference to political offendings which is commonly manifested by all communities so long as there is either real or seeming prosperity. The vast majority of our citizens know very well that we are over-legislated and overMinistered and that both legislators and administrators are over-paid. But such a condition has been endemic in colonial life as a result of the usual neglect ot political duties by the best elements of colonial society. We see this neglect at every election, whether local or general; half the electors commonly refrain from voting. Consequently, politics tend to become a profession and the ship of State becomes cumbered with continually increasing accumulations of barnacle-politicians. To send thoughtful and intelligent representatives to a national Parliament is one thing; to send mere units to swell an automatic majority is another thing altogether. And as none can set the worth to a State of a great statesman, so none can estimate the public worthlcssness of a mere party dummy, whether he sits on the front bench or on the back. The perception of this, in Australia, is inspiring the present remarkable movement for reducing the number of both members and Ministers and their salaries. The movement is ascribed to Federation, and that, of course, is the occasion. But if numerous and highly-paid members bad been found a public benefit there would have been no such tendency, capable and efficient legislation and administration being the last thing which the great body of citizens would disturb. As a matter of fact. Federation has furnished a plausible excuse for a needed reform which is latent in every colonial democracy and which we shall most certainly witness in our own colony at the first pressure of " hard times.''