THE New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). SATURDAY, AUGUST 20, 1887.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLX, Issue 8168, 20 August 1887, Page 4

THE New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY).

SATURDAY, AUGUST 20, 1887.

With which are incorporated the Wellington Independent, established 184-5, and the New Zealander,

With reference to the suggestion that the measures in the direction of retrenchment to be undertaken by the new Parliament should be the reduction or abolition of the honorarium to Legislative Councillors, it has objected that the House of Representatives has no power in the matter, as it most unwisely parted with that power only some three years ago, under the guidance of the present Government. It is contended that whereas, before the passing of the Parliamentary Honorarium and Privileges Act, 1884, the honorarium depended on the annual vote of the House, and the vote was taken each session as a portion of the ordinary estimates, so that the House could at any time have reduced the amount payable to members cf the Council, or abolish it altogether, the new Act gave the members of the Council a legal right to the same payment as the members of the other Chamber, and fixed what?thafc payment should be. This, it is truly observed, can now only be altered by another Act being passed, and no Act can be passed without the assent of the Council itself. The conclusion deduced is that, as members of the Council are in no fear of constituents, and are secure of their seats without reference to the ballot-box, they are not likely to share the popular desire for a reduction of their honorarium. All this is perfectly true so far as it goes. We should be disposed to use a much stronger term than “ unwise ’’ in characterising the action of those who promoted the Parliamentary flonorarium and Privileges Act of 884. We should rather call the passing of that measure a scandalous piece of corruption, planned only with the object of placing permanent pensions of £2lO per annum for life at the disposal of any Government that might wish thus to reward support or to dangle it before the eyes of “doubtfuls.” As matters how stand, any Ministry pan bestow a virtually unlimited number of these snug little “ billets,” with £2lO , per annum attached, the duties being not compulsorily more arduous than two or three months’ pleasant cluh-life each year at the Seat of Government. The fact that such an Act could have been passed at all is forcible evidence of the utterly corrupt and demoralised condition of the House at that period. But what we desire to point out is this: If the existence of that Act on the Statute Book is necessarily to bar any change, the same rule would apply to any proposed reform, or repeal or amendment of an Act. All have to receive the sanction of the Legislative Council, and all are liable to be thrown out. A Bill to repeal]! or amend the Parliamentary Honorarium and Privileges Act would, of course, be liable to be thrown out by the Council, but so would any other Bill. This would not be more open to such treatment than is every money Bill passed, by the Lower House. Assuredly any measure for the abolition of the Upper House, or for the reform of its constitution, would be subject to rejection by that body. Yet it is nevertheless proposed to introduce such Bills, notwithstanding that risk. The Lower House, and indeed the public at large, are just as powerless to alter the constitution of the Legislative Council as to reduce or abolish the payment of its members. Nevertheless, various proposals in the former direction are freely mooted and discussed, nay, even have been formulated in Bills, although these Lave never made much progress even in the Lower Chamber. There is ho good reason why the reform we now advocate should not be brought forward and vigorously advocated iu the new House. We areby nomeans certain that the Legislative Councillors would refuse to meet the House of Representatives in this matter if the latter body set the proper example of reducing their own ea’aries also. We are inclined rather to believe that the majority of the Councillors would freely recognise the- desirableness of the step, and would cordially support it. It is quite possible that a few whose appointment to tbe position was utterly unjustifiable, and who regard their councillorships as simply paid “ billets ” or pensions, might oppose any diminution of their gains, but we hope and believe that these would prove to be in a hopeless minority. The total abolition of all allowances even for necessary expenses might perhaps be deemed a hardship while definite services are demanded, but at least these allowances might fairly be limited to the amount of such necessary expenses. We strongly suspect that the real obstacle to this reform lies not so much with the Council as with the Lower House, and that if nothing is done it will be the fault of the latter. Let the new members be sincere in the effort to carry this reform, and there is good reason to anticipate that it will not be nnsuccesful.