The Otago Witness. DUNEDIN, SATURDAY, OCT. 22.

Otago Witness, Issue 986, 22 October 1870, Page 13

The Otago Witness. DUNEDIN, SATURDAY, OCT. 22.

Acting on the principle that it is never too late to mend, the Assembly has at length passed an Act for ' better securing the freedom and independence of Parliament.' It has declared that henceforth no person holding office under the General Government shall sit in either branch of the Legislature. It has also disqualified contractors with the General Government and officers in the Militia receiving permanent salaries. A penalty of £100 a day, for every day on which the offence is committed, may be recovered from any person who, being so disqualified, shall presume to take his seat in the Assembly. How it is that an Act of this kind has never been passed before, is one of the mysteries of constitutional government in this country. Probably New Zealand is the only portion of her Majesty's dominions, enjoying^ representative institutions, in which- the necessity for providing* against corruption in the Legislature has been bo long overlooked. That a seat in Parliament might have been held by any contractor, or by any paid servant of the General Government, up to the present time, is an astonishing fact in itself ; and it would be more so than it is, were we not familiar with the sight of salaried officers of the Government sitting in the House. Two members of the House were appointed to paid offices some few months before the session commenced; they retained their seats, and nobody dreamt of expressing an objection. In the previous session, Major Brown's case attracted a good deal of attention to this subject; but nothing came of it. The question has been brought up for discussion in the House on several occasions. Resolutions have been passed, and Bills have been brought in, for the purpose of purifying the Legislature; but the Legislature has never been much in earnest about its purity, and consequently the Bills have been allowed to lapse. Early in the late session, Mr Fox, bethinking him that he had recently conferred appointments on two members of the House, tabled resolutions strongly condemning the practice. By some means or other these resolutions were lost sight of, until Mr. Gillies took the matter up and tabled similar resolutions of his own. Thereupon Mr. -Fox complained that Mr. Gillies had not behaved fairly to him. 'I think the honourable member might have intimated to me his intention to take, I may say, the bread out of my mouth. I also have constituents, and I am aware that a general election is approaching. I think I ought to have been allowed to enjoy the benefits of such a popular motion as this will be on the hustings.'

An amusing difference of opinion was displayed- during the discussion which took place on this subject. Jißvery member who expressed his views on it appeared to be more or less of an original thinker. - Mr Gillies wished to enact that no member of the Assembly should

be eligible to any paid office under the General Government, for a period of on© year after ceasing to be a member. This provision was suggested by the public works policy which had just been adopted by the House ; the aim being ' to prevent a class of men getting into Parliament for the purpose of making it worth while for any Government to buy their services.' The proposal, however, met with opposition on all sides, honourable members appearing anxious to repudiate the idea that seats in Parliament could be sought for such a purpose. Then Mr Obeighton argued that the Superintendents of Provinces ought to be disqualified, an argument in which he was forcibly supported by Mr Hall. The former hinted that Superintendents were in the habit of intimidating members who happened to hold office under them. The latter asserted that officers of Provincial Governments sitting in Parliament are as much under the control of Superintendents who are also members of the House, as gentlemen holding office under the Colonial Government are under the control of Ministers. And he added that if provincial officers were not disqualified, he would vote against the resolutions altogether ; because the law would otherwise give a power of corruption to Superintendents while taking it away from Minister;?. This view of the case also proved repugnant to the House, and accordingly 'the Superintendents and their tails' were left untouched. Another suggestion which fell from Mr Ckeighton met with more acceptance ; it referred to contractors. They were disqualified without hesitation. Mr Fitzhbrbert took an eminently original view of the general question. He thought that, instead of securing the independence of Parliament, the pro■posal before them would only secure its inefficiency. The best security we can have for our independence is, ' the independent spirit of the nation and the moral instincts and habits of the country at large.' Then he suggested that, ' upon the acceptance of any office other than that of Minister, the holder of such office, if a member of Parliament, should be sent to his constituents, who are the proper judges.' It would be treachery to the Constitution 'to ostracise your very best men in the country because, forsooth, they are guilty of the crime of not being rich men.' This may be taken to mean that, in Mr Fitzhereert's estimation, your very best men are to be found in Parliament, and that they have a sort of pre-emptive right to appointments under the Government. His lively faith in the moral instincts and habits of the country at large did not stop short even at contractors. The best safeguard we could adopt in their case would be, to send them back to their constituents. ' Sir, are we to aay that a man, because he becomes a contractor, has by that mere fact all the elements of corruption imported into his mind 1 I say there are men who are contractors, all over the world, of the highest possible qualifications, and who under no circumstances would be tempted to give a vote in a corrupt sense.' This is ' a remarkably ingenious argument, and Mr Fitzherbert's friends must have thought so at the time. The House had evidently shut its eyes to the fact that peradven- 1 ture a contractor might be incorruptible, and consequently that his exclusion from Parliament would be a public calamity. Why indeed should the House have * a down ' on contractors, if honourable members may accept appointments in the public service 1 ? Mr Fitzherbert's consistency is quite as commendable as his logic.