NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1229, 11 September 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The opinion appears to be very generally held that the Budget presented to Parliament by Sir Joseph Ward while not lacking in attractive features is a little too obviously framed for electioneering purposes to achieve tho object aimed at. No doubt a certain proportion of unthinking people will swallow it whole, but the case_ with which the Ward Administration forgets its pledges and changes its mind on important points of policy is a hindrance to any general acceptance of tho idea that many of the proposals put forward are ever likely to bo given practical effect. It is rather significant in this respect that while the electors have been promised, regardless of cost, almost everything under the sun of a nature likely to make direct appeal to their individual pockets or their sectional interests, several of the larger urgent questions of national policy have been conveniently shelved. No mention is made of the important question of th" Government's policy in the matter of land tenure. This makes it plain that the Government is again going to shirk this issue. Then again, we were promised a Local Government Bill this session. This question of local government is not one likely to inspire election enthusiasm, but it is one o£ momentous importance to the Dominion in conjunction with the question of public works expenditure. Yet not one word of reference is made to the promise of the Government to introduce a Local Government Bill—a promise which has been broken for more years than we care to recall.

On Wednesday of last week Mr. G. Hi/rt'iiisox, who will contest the Wangamii sent at the general election,'delivered a long and very interesting speech. He stated his position with the, utmost clearness: he is so convinced that the present Government is bad that if elected lie will vote- for its removal in any circum-

stances whatever. The public likes a straightforward statement as much as it dislikes such statements as those of the candidates who say, with unconscious humour: "I will support the Government on a 'no-confidence motion, but on other matters I shall vote as I think right." • Mr. Hutchison's indictment of the Government was full and convincing, hut wc cannot summarise here the excellent points he made. We merely wish to call attention to his advocacy of the profit-sharing system in industry. Like most people who are capable of independent thought, and who can get below the surface of things,; he knows that compulsory arbitration, with its resultant permanent coercion, has failed; but he considers also that conciliation has no lasting power. In the sense that it will never remove all disagreements from the world of industry, he is right. He proposes that the law should be amended so as to encourage the workers in any business to enter into association with their employers and share the profits. The invested capital would bo paid just like the workers, and all profits over and above such a profit as it is agreed shall go to the holders of the capital shall be divided amongst the workers. Mr. Hutchison has evidently given a good deal of thought to the co-operative system, which has had a very great success in Great Britain, and we are glad to find him doing something to bring the matter under general discussion._ There is no reason why an industrial pro-fit-sharing system and a Wages Board system should not be working side by side. The result would be a vast improvement on present conditions.

We must congratulate Sir Joseph Ward on the proposed abolition of the gift duty and estate duties in certain cases. At the present time a parent cannot make a gift above £500 in value to a son or daughter without having to pay duty on it at the rate of five per cent. A father who wishes to give his son an interest in his business, possibly after the son has worked with him for years and earned it, is taxed for making this provision for his child. So also if he desires to make somo provision for his daughter. Sir Joseph Ward proposes to do away with the duty on gifts up to £1000 in value in cases of blood, relationship, such as stated, or as between husband and wife. He also states his intention to do away with estate duty, where the beneficiary is a stranger in blood, on property so left up to £200 in value. Since the passing of the Death Duties Act-of 1909 we have had numerous instances quoted of the heavy inroads made on small bequests to strangers in blood under that Act. The. amendments now proposed aro well deserving of approval and support,

That our Ministerialist friends arc secretly very uneasy—and with good reason—at the decision of Mit. Fowlds to abandon the Government that he finds lacking in principles can be seen even through their brave attempts to say that the incident does not matter. The Duncdin Evc/iinij Star, realising that it is useless to pretend unconcern, speaks out frankly enough. It says, to bo sure, that it docs not believe that any "appreciable loss'' will accrue to the Government, but its whole tone shows plainly that that is just what it does believe. "A serious lapse in political ethics" is what it calls Mr. Fowlus's action, and it says he "chose his time cither with strange carelessness or bitter carefulness": "He should have faced the popular verdict in company with his colleagues." Our contemporary says that all the facts set forth in his statement "serve to show cause why he should not have deserted the Government at this juncture," and since the main feature of the ex-Minister's statement was his reference to the Government's weakness and want of principle, wo suppose we must infer that tho Ministerialist view is that the Government is in such a bad way that Mr. Fowlds should have stuck to it. The Hon. J. T. Paul made a statement last week in praise of Mit. Fowlds, in the course of which ho said: "I think the thing which transcends all others in importance in the statement made by Mr. Fowlds is that it is to my mind a true interpretation of the spirit of the times we are living in—a wonderful age, full of change." The Star quotes this,_ and concludes with this snort of indignation, which shows how hard our , Ministerialist friends have been hit: "Did you ever • Apparently it is indeed an age full of changed ideas concerning political _ loyalty and the ethics of Ministerial association."

It is rather interesting to note that the financial proposals of the Government this election year include an increase in the cost of government totalling three-quarters of a million sterling. That is to say, election year 1911 is to be celebrated by imposing an increased toll on the people of New Zealand amounting to something like fifteen shillings per head for every man, woman, and child in the Dominion. Of course the Government cannot go electioneering and offering bribes and sops to secure support at tho polls without someoue paying the piper—and it is the public who pay. It is a curious thing that many people appear to labour under the delusion that expenditure by the Government of the country is met from some mysterious source quite independent of the people themselves. They do not realise that the £9,3-13,106 expended by the Ward Administration last year came out of tho people's pockets and that the £10,136,566 proposed to be spent this year will also come out of. their pockets. Even those who tako consolation from the i belief that it is part of the loan money borrowed by the Government are deceiving themselves. The loan money goes into quite a different fund altogether. However, we merely mention the matter just now for the enlightenment of those unfamiliar with the finances of tho ]sominion who, seeing the electioneering proposals of the Government, may think they arc being offered something for nothing. The electors arenas we stated on Saturday, being bribed with their own money. That is assuming of course the Government, if returned to ofiice, do not forget their promises altogether after the stress of tho elections has passed.