South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, AUGUST 20, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2626, 20 August 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, AUGUST 20, 1881.

SECOND EDITION

The Committee appointed to inquire into the pensions of Sir William Fitzherbert, Dr Pollen, and Mr Gisborne, have brought up their report, which is to the effect that although there were circumstances connected with the granting of the pensions which were not strictly “ 0.K,” it would be advisable for Parliament to pass an Act to validate them. With regard to the pensions of the three above-mentioned gentlemen, that of Dr Pollen’s was the only one which was obtained in an open and straightforward manner. Sir William Fizherbert and Mr Gisborne were guilty of an immense amount of shuffling in foisting themselves on the pension list of the colony. In old times Sir William Fitzherbert was called the “sturdy beggar”, of the House, That had reference to his demands for expenditure in the province of which he was the last Superintendent. But the wary old politician’s begging took a more personal turn, and after drawing considerable sums annually from the State for a long series of years, he succeeded in getting provision made for his old age to the tune of £325 annually. Mr Gisborne is another public man who regards the handling of public money as the breath of his nostrils. He, too, subsisted comfortably on Government disbursements for close on a generation, to be rewarded for the remainder of his life with a pension of £lO6 a year. Had they been both hard

worked Civil servants who had spent the best years of their lives in the public service at small remuneration, few would have begrudged them provision for their old age. But Sir William Fitzherbert and Mr Gisborne were very far removed from being hard worked and ill-paid servants of the Crown. They were professional politicians pure and simple, who always managed to draw largo salaries no matter what Government was in power. When it was found not convenient for them to enter the Cabinet, they were relegated to the Civil Service to be again transferred to the Treasury Benches when the convenience of parties required it. We have used the word “ convenience,” for no one ever gave either gentleman the credit of having,a shred of political principle. We regret that the Committee of Enquiry did not see their way to recommending that any Act brought in on the subject of pensions should only provide for the continuance of those obtained in a legal and open manner. The Committee, however, thought otherwise. Its members are virtually of opinion that the mere fact of a man having drawn a pension, no matter by what means that pension was at first obtained, entitles him to a continuance of payment for the natural term of his life. The fact of a wrong being committed is no reason why that wrong should be perpetuated. No doubt it would shock the recipient’s sense of propriety for Parliament to cut short a payment which has had the sanction of years. Such a step might also inflict injury on persons who may have advanced money on the security of the pensions abrogated. But these are purely private matters which should be subservient to the interests of the taxpayers of the colony, who, in the cases referred to have justice on their side. However, as Mr Saunders truly said, the unfortunate ratepayers of New Zealand appeared to have nobody to represent them in the past. We are afraid that the case is not much better at present. There is a Bill dealing with the subject of pensions now before the Legislature. It was introduced by Mr Shrimski, and despite the strong opposition of the Government was read a third time in the House of Representatives on Thursday night. In our opinion, that Bill docs not go far enough. Still, it is a step in the right direction. The Bill provides that all claims for pensions should be submitted to Parliament. It also provides that when a person in receipt of a pension re-enters the public service the amount of the pension should be deducted from bis salary. It contains a clause that no person in receipt of a pension should be capable of bolding a seat in either branch of the Legislature. The Bill, so far as it goes, should commend itself to Parliament and the country. If it becomes law, it will put an end to the backstairs work which placed Sir William Fitzherbert and Mr Gisborne on the pension list. All claims must, according to the Bill, undergo the scrutiny of Parliament, and the taxpayers of the colony will be placed in possession of the full details. In other words, those who have to pay the money are to be consulted. No Under-Secretaries will in future be able, in a surreptitious and underhand manner, to confer pensions on their friends, and thus hypothecate the future revenue of the country. It will be recognised that the interests of those who would have to provide the payments arc of more concern than the interests of would-be pensioners. We would much prefer to have seen a Bill introduced doing away with pensions altogether. It is fairly presumable that no man would remain in the Civil Service if he could better himself elsewhere, and there is no valid reason why he should receive a pension more than a merchant’s clerk, who is frequently harder worked and worse paid. H a man accomplishes anything particularly worthy of recognition by the country, the best plan would be to grant him a lump sum of money. The pension system, as worked in this colony, has, up to the present, proved to be vicious and corrupt. The most unworthy have received the lion’s share of the spoil.