The Sun WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1928. CONTRITE, BUT UNREPENTANT

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 355, 16 May 1928, Page 10

The Sun WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1928. CONTRITE, BUT UNREPENTANT

A S the ablest spokesman for a political administration that is not over-rich in effective eloquence, the Hon. W. Downie Stewart is at his best when he is contrite. It is then he disarms critics, transforms enemies into friends, and gives even unemotional business men a consoling impression that the taxation of their income is really light and friendly and that a hard world is bestrewn with profitable opportunities. In a mood of admiration, however, it should not be forgotten that quite often behind the contrition of the Minister of Finance there is the chuckle of a pawky humorist. It was so at any rate yesterday when Mr. Stewart soothed the members of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and took the edge off their hostility to his financial policy. Though they were genuinely delighted to welcome him as a guest, he preferred whimsically to appear as a prisoner at the bar, conscious of his previous record as an administrative marauder of taxable incomes, but electing to defend himself with full confidence in his ability to prove that his raids were made in the public interest and thus were not indictable. He got a luncheon verdict in his favour, hut a Scottish jury would have awarded him nothing more than the doubting conclusion, “ not proven.” And when Mr. Stewart, in happy vein, did not maintain the role of a prisoner at the bar, he assumed, in part only, the role of the contrite psalmist, crying in distress: “My sin is ever before me, and my sins and transgressions are greater than can he numbered.” But the anguished political psalmist refused to be repentant. As for the hurricane of criticism from Auckland concerning the brigandage of the Taxation Department, the unrepentant Minister merely “ bowed his head to the storm,” confident that it would soon blow over, giving way to zephyrs fragrant with appreciation and praise. Since it is not necessary for critics to be psalmists and reflect upon their countless sins and transgressions, they have less need of repentance and thus may be more justified than the State Treasurer in hardening their hearts. There is no occasion for Mr. Stewart to be stubborn in defence of his political sins and transgressions. He knows quite well—indeed, no one knows better—that it is long past time for the Government to reduce the burden of taxation and give an essential impetus to trade, industry, and national enterprise. Everything is on the mend these days and the country really has turned the corner of depression. It actually sees at last the silver lining to the cloud. But it is tired of these syrupy platitudes. It wants a true reform financial policy. If Mr. Stewart and the Reform Government desire a quick return to something like their earlier popularity, the shortest cut to it is by way of decreased taxation. There is no sense in turning to Great Britain for evidence of heavier burdens. Of course, the British taxpayer is taxed to the bone, but if administrators insist upon taking the worst experiences of the British public as their main line of defence the New Zealand taxpayer will demand an experience also of the best things in English politics. The argument cuts both ways, and a doubleedged sword is a dangerous toy. On other subjects Mr. Stewart demonstrated again that he is a real student of politics. But while most people will agree with him that the Dominion’s ablest young men should turn their talents into the political field, very few citizens would want to see in Parliament the intellectual youths with great possessions, who “ do nothing except to see that they get across to Sydney for the races every winter.” In politics now, horse-racing has quite enough supporters. MANUFACTURERS AND PROTECTION AUCKLAND manufacturers, according to the report presented at the annual meeting of the Manufacturers’ Association, complain of inadequate tariff protection. They are by no means given the fullest measure of encouragement by the Customs that men labouring earnestly to build up a great system of secondary industry should receive. Several large industrial undertakings are languishing under the effect of almost unrestricted competition from foreign goods which have their origin in countries which utilise cheap labour; and in at least some instances, it is said, industries will have to close down. Only a very limited number of industries received encouragement in the last tariff revision, according to the annual report of the association, while in two cases the duty was eliminated, with the result that the undertakings affected will have to cease. Stress is laid upon the fine encouragement accorded to old-established British industries by the general increase of the British preferential tariff, and it is justly contended that had the same treatment been extended to New Zealand manufacturers, much would have been done to assist in building up our young industries and —a most important point—providing work for the increased population which is so essential for the prosperity of the Dominion. Though preference to British goods is a very fine thing in the abstract, it is not beneficial when it penalises local enterprise. The first duty of the New Zealand Government is to encourage industry in New Zealand. It cannot do so by refusing adequate protection against imported goods. New Zealand can best help Britain, and at the same time further its own development, by absorbing part of the surplus population of the British Isles. It cannot absorb these people, nor can it easily maintain those already here, unless it provides employment. The best way to provide employment is to build up the secondary industries, and a thoroughly protective tariff is the chief essential to this end.