THE NEW TARIFF.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2189, 19 September 1907, Page 1

THE NEW TARIFF.

FURTHER DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. THE BILE PASSED. Press Association. WELLINGTON, Sept. IS. After midnight last- night Air Hunan contended that no country which in recent yoars had adopted a protective policy had gone back. On cho other hand lie pointed-out that tho United States, Germany, and Canada had progressed considerably under a policy of protection. Air. Alassoy considered Air. Alillar’s remarks were more apologetic than otherwise. Ho (Air. Alassey) believed tho new tariff would remove anomalies in one direction, but believed, it would create anomalies in another direction. His principal objection to the. tariff was, that it was a departure from the principle laid down by Air. Seddon that all agricultural machinery and implements and mining machinery should bo- free of duty, lie urged that wo should-encourage tho bringing in of money to develop mining, and contended that in placing a duty on mining machinery we were retarding the investment of money

in this direction. The Alinister had referred to tho tariff in Australia, but he (Air. Alassey) pointed out that tho tariff was not yet carried, and from what could be learned it appeared that the people of Australia wero opposed to tho proposed new tariff. He contended that comparison should not bo made between this tariff and that of any other country, but between this and the old tariff. He contended that tho increased number of items on tho preferential list meant increased taxation to tho producer of the colony. Referring to agricultural machinery, ho contended that no one could say what tho increased taxation from this source would amount to. He maintained that, setting asido the remission on sugar, tho increases that. were being made in other directions were equal to the remission. He claimed that the duties on butter, grain, etc., were ,of no benefit to the farming community, and would not bo for many years, as at present we produced much more than we could consume. Consequently as long as we were an exporting country we could not derive, as producers any benefit , from these duties. Next tho duty should be taken off all necessaries of life. It. seemed to him that .the-Alinister’s tariff was, like the Government’s policy, a mass of shreds and patches. He voted for tho retention of . the flour duty, but did not think if it had been removed that it would make much difference either to the millers or the consumers; as. latterly wheat had been dearer; in Australia than it was in New Zealand.

The Premier said Air. Alassey had calculated the net remissions of the tariff were £150,000; i but against this he quoted figures of. the Customs officers, who stated: that the remission amounted to over £400,000, and the net remissions wero £297,151, preferential tariff all told, £117,000. It had been contended that the tariff was in the interests of the rich and 'against the workers. If, they, turned to the tariff of 1905 they would find that machinery ' for agricultural, dairying, and mining purposes was on the 5 per cent list,originally. Proceeding, he said: the whole amount from land tax last year was £44,700. This year considerable reductions were being made .in-,tlie Customs tariff which were..unprecedented in the history of the colony. In fact, they were giving away about one-seventh of the Customs revenue. The Premier read, a detailed statement to show that concessions were being made in wearing,apparel, etc., largely used by ,the, workers. Alucli had been said of- the increased duty on boots,

but the fact was that the Government had taken steps to prevent tho imp,ortation of rubbish. He added that it was not intended- to prevent higherclass boots , being imported. Referring to. the,dairying industry, ho sjiid the .biggest customers were people; in the towns and country of the colony, and .they must not be ignored in framing the tariff. They piust not undervalue the- Home trade. • It had been reckoned that for a man, his wife, and three children, the tariff meant 12s per head per annum. (As to the farmer, he pointed out that Mr Massey and Air James Allen both voted against the Advances to Settlers Act,, and he wanted to know how they reconciled that with theii neiylj - formed advocacy of tho farmer. Referring to Mr. J. Allen’s remarks as ,to-liis utterances on j)referenco at tho Imperial Conference, he said Air. Allen should, if he desired to* be fair,, have referred to the largo addition made to the preferential list.

Turning to mining, lie pointed out that miners’ rights had been reduced from 10s to ss, and leases extended from -21 to 42 years, and reductions made in rents from 10s an acre to 2s 6d an acre for the first'year, 5s second •and 7s 6d for the third year. Ho claimed that this Government had done much for miners. Ho added . that £BOOO -had been devoted to inspection of dairies. The Government had'hot attempted to gain popularity, but he asked the people to recognise that the Government had done what it believed to be right, and that it had given concessions, the greater part of which affected the food and clothing of the mass of the people. Mr. Millar, in reply, defended liis remarks made in moving the third reading. The Bill Was read a third time and passed. The House adjourned a 1.52 a.m.

tho free list, winch was agreod to hy a majority , -of the House. •‘I .want to say it soomud■ to me thou,, andf it. seems to mo now,” said Air. Alnbsey, •‘that tho attitude of the Government in.that connection .was.petulant and undignified.” 'Air. Alassey went on to state what-had happened after tho rebuff to the Government, referring . particularly .to the . introduction of tho Licensing-Bill, which was to provide that in the event of a s dissolution tho local option poll should bo taken in the ordinary' way. ‘.‘What did it all mean?” ho-asked. “The right lion, gentleman represents a part, of tho. colony, that is, known as Bluff, and it seems to nio that bluff entered.very largely into the action of the Government on that occasion. (Laughter.) Sir, it is laid down by all constitutional authorities that a threat of dissolution on the part of any Government is highly improper. Tho threat was not there in so many words, but what was dono was evidently intended to convey the impression that if members who support tho Government were not more care-

ful in rogard to their actions a- dissolution would bo brought about, but it is ono thing to ask for a dissolution and another thing to obtain it, and I venturo to say that before a dissolution would be granted the representative of His Alajosty in this colony would, take very good care to

inquire into the circumstances leading up to it, and- take care to ascertain whether the possibiliios of Parliament had been exhausted before committing the people of the country to :

tlio trouble, expense, and worry, in connection with an election. So far as a dissolution is concerned,l do not object to it in the. slightest, but that is not the point- The point is that Parliament should not bo coerced in the way that was attempted by the Government. There should be no idea of a throat or even a hint of a dissolution when a Government is defeated on a comparatively unimportant motion.”

The . Leader of - the Opposition was followed by tho Premier, who also made a forcible speech. Towards his conclusion Sir Joseph IV ard made reference to his attitude in regard to a dissolution. Tho granting of a disso-

lution was, lie said, entirely the prerogative of the representative of the King, but whoever was tho head of the Government liad his rights, and he (Sir Joseph Ward) was prepared to exercise them in such a way as he be-

lieved to be right, and no one could stop him if he believed it to be in accordance with the maintenance of the traditions of the high office he held. Nobody could stop him from relinquishing his position or prevent him from exercising his constitutional right, and there must be justification for a refusal. The'party lie headed was returned to power under another Prime Alinister, his distinguished predecessor. Unhappily through death it had lost its leader. He (Sir Joseph Ward) now held that position, and if he wys to be overshadowed by a portion of the party, saying they had notbeen returned to support him and that they would desert him, he would have the right to ask for the same recognition which would have been received by the late Prime Alinister had he lived. As a new leader brought.into tho position by tho hand of death, lie had an undeniable right to ask the people of the country if he possessed their confidence. He had neither asked for nor been refused a dissolution, but ho knew what his rights were. - He was not thinking of liis' personal safety, but of the maintenance of .the high• traditions of his office. Ho was not going to ; be trodden upon by any member of tlio House, whether they were supporters or from the Opposition benches.