THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1929. A TEST IN PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20331, 12 August 1929, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1929. A TEST IN PARLIAMENT.

Sqme time in the not very distant future, if the Leader of the Opposition follows the course he has indicated, two things will be tested in the House of Representatives. Mr. Coatcs has given notice of an amendment when the Customs Amendment Bill is before the House. This can refer only to the proposal to double the existing primage duty of 1 per cent, on all imported goods. There will be nothing else in the bill of a material character, for, though its contents have not yet been made public, significant alterations to the customs law cannot be incorporated in it. The system by which the tariff is altered forbids any such happening. If, therefore, the amendment is pressed to a division, there will be revealed what the House thinks of the increased primage levy, or alternatively how it will divide when a question of principle and the security of the present Govj eminent are involved. It has been } generally assumed that the amend--1 mcnt will be equivalent to a no- - confidence motion. To declare it such in specific terms, if it does not declare itself to be a motion of the kind, must rest with the Government. How it can do anything else ,it is impossible to say, for the primage increase has been made a vital feature of the financial proposals Sir Joseph Ward outlined in his Budget.. The House will, therefore, almost certainly face the prospect of deciding not only on the primage duty, but on the existence of the Government. To those who disap- . prove the increased tax, yet fear to risk the fall of the Government, a dilemma arises. Their only certain means of escape is by absence from the Chamber when the division bell rings, and this is an easy way not popular with electorates, which dislike a negative attitude. The position of the Reform Party is perfectly clear. Its leading critic in finance, Mr. Downie Stewart, has declared specifically that the increased taxation the Prime Minister proposes is not really necessary to balance the Budget. The revenue, he insisted last week, could be trusted to regain its buoyancy sufficiently to right the position automatically—provided expenditure were kept down to the scale observed last year. In support of this he quoted from the Financial Statement, and if he had had at his disposal the accounts for the first quarter of the financial year, published on Saturday, he would have had much more ammunition. His main contention was that the new. taxation could only be meant to meet new expenditure involved by the policy of the Government, that policy which was not to "cost the taxpayer a penny." In his speech can be seen the origin of Mr. Coates' amendment. It does not touch the land tax proposals the Prime Minister has outlined, for they must be contained in other measures. The position has thus been clarified. The increased primage duty, and through it the whole financial policy of the Government, arc to be challenged. The duty was heavily criticised when the Budget appeared. The answer from the Government side was that it was too small to be considered seriously or to be passed on, and that in any event it was only a temporary expedient. The first contention was immediately disputed, the second was accepted sceptically. Outside Parliament the proposal has also been attacked bv representative commercial men who deny its triviality, deny that it will not be passed on, and point to the fact that the original primage duty, imposed in 1915 as a temporary expedient to meet war conditions, has lasted some 14 years. It cannot be contended seriously that the amendment to the Customs Bill is a trifle. It deals with a subject on which the country has shown a good deal of feeling: it concerns the Government's election pledges not to increase taxation but to consider means of reducing it. For two sections of the House the position is perfectly clear. It can be taken for granted that Mr. Coates will have, the full support of his party for the amendment. The pledged members of the United Party can lie expected to vote solidly. There is a major question of policy at stake, and the infallibility of Sir Joseph Ward as a financier is also involved. Of the independents, Mr. Poison and Mr. Hogan have already spoken in support of the proposal, Mr. Rushworth and Mr. Wilkinson adversely to itThere is no definite indication how the two last-named would vote if the crucial moment came. The key of the position is held by the Labour Party. Its only official pronouncement has been the publication of a caucus resolution which docs not commit it to anything, but rather nmphasises that it stands uncommitted. The members of the party condemned the primage duty strongly when the resolution was being considered. Mr. Holland himself set the ball rolling for his side by declaring the increase absolutely wrong in principle. He was followed by a number of his associates, all taking the same line. One went so far as to say he would vote against the primage duty. Yet if the Labour Party finds the. fate of the Government in its hands, to vote against what it has condemned may not be easy. Its main pledge is to give the Government general support, especially to support it whenever it is right. Here is a.point on which the party has already declared the ' Government wrong. It will certainly , be reluctant, to throw the whole poli- | tical position into confusion by vot- j ing against the Government, yet it | faces the alternative of voting' against its declared convictions. The ' easy way out would be to withdraw ! and refrain from voting; considering how itp members have jibed at others for following this course, it would find this difficult to do f

BRITAIN AND EGYPT. When the terms of the draft treaty between Great Britain and Egypt were announced a few days ago one point was left obscure, how it was to be ratified satisfactorily in the absence of an Egyptian Parliament. About a year ago King Fuad, by Royal decree, dissolved the Parliament then existing and announced that for three years the administration of the country would be carried on without direct representation of the people. The cabled account of the treaty negotiations said it was to be submitted to the Egyptian Parliament and people, without explaining how or when this was to bo done. It has now been explained by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs that Mr. Arthur Henderson has stipulated for the restoration of Parliamentary government. Dr. Dalton also said the British Government did not intend to interfere in the internal politics of Egypt, When the King dissolved Parliament last year, Sir Austen Chamberlain, questioned on the subject, 6aid it was rio concern of Britain, for there was no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of Egypt. It appears that views on what may be termed interference differ, since Mr. Henderson required the restoration of Parliament without any change in the electoral law as a condition in the treaty negotiations. Perhaps no further interference in purely internal affairs is contemplated. The condition has interesting possibilities. A Parliament elected on the old franchise, with the treaty a leading issue, as it certainly will be, will be quite likely to reject it as failing to reach the old Zaghlul standard of absolute evacuation of Egyptian territory by British troops, and surrender of the Sudan to purely Egyptian control. The position is peculiar. A treaty could not be usefully signed and sealed while Parliamentary government is in abeyance. Yet there is no evidence that terms such as Mr. Henderson has offered are any more likely to be given popular endorsement than settlements previously proposed. Mr. Henderson's treaty may therefore prove just an empty gesture, leaving the old position of stalemate in no way changed, in spite of the claims that the Labour Government was going to make a lasting settlement with Egypt.