THE POLITICAL SITUATION.

Evening Star, Issue 7613, 16 May 1888, Page 1

THE POLITICAL SITUATION.

The hope of the Opposition evidently rests in the Tariff proposals of the Government not being acceptable to the majority of the House. There is, of course, little room for doubt that the Protectionists will not be satisfied j whilst it is possibly conceived that, among the Ministerialists, many may be found who object altogether to any arrangement which involves the increase of duties, except perhaps for purely revenue purposes. The idea is evidently entertained that Ministers are between the horns of a dilfTma, and that successful extrication must present difficulties well nigh insuperable. Sir Harry Atkinson, however, is an old campaigner, and thoroughly knows his way about, and we should not be surprised if the party, so confident in his discomfiture, should find the tables turned on themselves, and their position, as between their duty and their inclination, made decidedly warm. It maybe taken for granted that ihe Financial Statement will disclose authoritatively a condition of finance which renders the imposition of further taxation in some form necessary, in order to keep up the revenue to the requirements of the expenditure, materially reduced as this has been. The first duty of the House must therefore be to provide ways and means, and it will devolve on the Treasurer to indicate how he proposes to effect this under the existing circumstances of the colony. His Excellency in the opening Speech gave no uncertain sound as to the proposed readjustment of the Tariff being designed “to afford further financial aid in carry- “ ing on the departments of the Govem- “ ment. ” Presumably “ the effect “ which the alterations will have upon “ the trade and manufactures of the “ colony ” is a secondary consideration. The situation is complicated, no doubt, by the generally admitted fact that any augmentation of direct imposts is not practicable; whilst changing the incidence of such taxation by the substitution of a land and income tax for the property tax would be at the best a very rash experiment, akin to swapping horses in the middle of the stream. The issue therefore, we opine, will not, in reasonable probability, be joined on the adoption or not of Protection; but the fight will be forced on the financial policy as a whole, which may reasonably be anticipated to commend itself to the House and the country. Even on the assumption that an abstract resolution in favor of Protection should be carried, it by no means follows that Ministers would throw up the sponge and leave to the mercy of any possible successors their partiallydeveloped schemes of economic reform, which are so entirely in accord with the will of the people. The course would be constitutionally open to them to readjust their Tariff, or they would have a fair claim to appeal to the country. As to the first course, it must be borne in mind that financial propositions of English Ministers have not infrequently been dissented from by the House of Commons without involving their resignation, and Chancellors of the Exchequers have had on several occasions in recent years to modify their Budgets. We are sorry to dash the aspirations of ambitious members of the Opposition, but they may be assured that even such success as they perhaps look forward to would be attended with little material result politically. Lord Paemersson, on a notable occasion, expressed himself very clearly on the point. “I am happy,” he said, “to say that we live at a time when “ experience has shown that a Budget “ may be modified or rejected without “any change in the position of the “ Ministry. I am glad that we have “seen Budgets withdrawn and fresh “ ones introduced. We have seen taxes “ remitted, or taxes the remission of “ which, when proposed, hasbeenrefused “ without any effect upon the Cabinet. “ In fact a change of Budget does not “ involve a change of Ministry. . . < “It would be unfortunate for the free “exercise of the judgment of the “ House if the rejection of any portion “of the Budget were to be construed “into a vote of want of confidence.” Practically it would be open to the Treasurer, in the event of his proposals not being considered to go far enough in the direction of the adventitious encouragement of local industries, to modify his Tariff accordingly. We can hardly, however, conceive Sir Harry Atkinson willingly taking this course; but it is just a possibility which circumstances might justify. The resignation of Ministers on the question we do not consider to be on the cards—most certainly not without relegation to the constituencies. These speculations, however, savor very much of dreamland. What seems, all things considered, most likely is that the good sense of a sufficient majority will be with Ministers, and that support will not be diverted by what is really a side issue. As Mr Pyke very truly said, in moving the Address-in-Reply, “neither Protection “ nor Freetrade is a necessary factor “in the prosperity of a colony, ’* although the first may retard and the latter advance that prosperity. In spite of Protection we find countries blessed with great natural resources flourish, whilst a fiscal policy based on the soundest principles cannot give security from the occasionally recurring waves of depression. It is sheer madness to suppose that the bad times in New Zealand can possibly be ameliorated by checking imports, raising prices all

round, and temporarily stimulating a few industries, which employ a mere fraction of the population and fire not capable of any extensive development. It would seem to be expected that the imposition of a high scale of duties would have a magical effect —at once till the towns with thriving multitudes and populate the country now unoccupied ! The adoption of ihe Victorian Tariff, it is in effect alleged, would make Dunedin a second Melbourne perhaps not a desirable consummation after all. Were Protection an accomplished fact, the day of disenchantment and of reckoning would soon come to the people of this colony, circumstanced as the vast majority are ; so that they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by the adoption of this policy.