Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18197, 18 March 1921, Page 4

THE ACTING PREMIERSHIP. 'Pttb objection which has been raised in Parliament to the arrangement for the assumption by Sir Francis Bell of the duties of the office of Prime Minister during the absence of Mr Massey from the dominion, has not been supported by any valid argument. One member after another has taken exception to the arrangement without apparently being able to explain his opposition on any ground that challenges attention. We can perfectly well understand that the performance of the duties of- Acting-Prime Minister by a member of the Legislative Council while Parliament was in session would at the present day be regarded as undesirable. Yet we should not ignore the fact that it had frequently happened at Home, under both Conservative and Liberal regimes, that the Prime Minister has been a member of Ike House of Lords. In New Zealand itself there have been Governments of which the Prime Minister has been a member of the Legislative Council. The last of these occasions was, however, nearly 40 years ago, and it would be idle to suggest that the precedent is of any value at the present time, when the responsibilities of the Ministers are considerably greater than they were then, and when, moreover, the system of representation is widely different from that which then obtained. The virtue of the principle under which the office of' Prime Minister is now held by a menvber of the popular branch of the. Legislature is perfectly obvious. It expresses the recognition of the fact that the head of the Government, who is responsible for all the acts of the Government, should be a member of that House in which the Government is chargeable by the representatives of the electors in respect of its conduct of public affairs, and in which the fate of the Government is determined. But it cannot be argued successfully that this consideration, the importance of which is unquestionable, applies when Parliament is not in session. The Prime Minister, whether he is in or out of the dominion, is answerable, when Parliament meets, for all the administrative acts of his colleagues during the recess. Nor are the rights of the representatives of the people abridged in the slightest degree through, the performance of the Prime Minister’s duties in the recess by a member of the Upper House. If they were, or even if they were in danger of abridgment, the appointment of Sir Francis Bell as Acting-Prime Minister would certainly be open to objection. As they are not, the opposition which has been expressed to his appointment can only be said to be the product of a spirit of narrow partisanship. Since there are no constitutional grounds and *no grounds based on any vital principle upon which the assumption by a member of the Upper House of the office of Acting-Prime Minister during the parliamentary recess may be reasonably attacked, it remains only to be said that Sir Francis Bell is, besides Mr Massey, the only remaining member of the original Reform Cabinet and by far the most highly experienced of Mr Massey’s colleagues. His appointment, therefore, is completely in accordance with the. fitness of

THE SUBSIDY EXPEDIENT. Of the various devices that have been employed in the endeavour to keep down the prices of commodities during the immediate past the subsidy expedient is among the least satisfactory. In practical application it fails to satisfy the test either of practical common sense or of economic theory. It offends common sense because it simply involves an operation under which the payment for the article, which is the subject of the subsidy, is made out of two pockets instead of out of one only, and a charge is exacted for this useless operation. It offends economic law by an interfetence with the free play of those natural forces which in many other directions are so rapidly bringing the conditions of trade back to the normal state. The subsidy system has the further disadvantage of purporting to the consumer that a commodity is sold below its economic cost of production, whereas it extracts from the public as a whole the difference between the sale price of the commodity and the cost of production and in the final analysis it adds something to that cost on account of the charges connected with the administration of -the system. It is consequently misleading. It has misled fi correspondent who writes to us this morning on the subject. It is now proposed to reduce the subsidy on flour, which in 1919-20 amounted to £213,000. Under the expedient which is to be superseded each family paid a certain price per loaf of bread consumed and paid an additional few shillings through taxation for the privilege of obtaining “ cheap bread.” Under the revised subsidy the consumer will pay an in- . creased price per loaf for bread and a reduced amount through taxation to provide the flour subsidy. In reality, though the consumer will under the new arrangement pay a higher, price for bread, it will cost him less. The position qf butter has been very similar. The* new adjustment which will be • necessary at the end of the month will reduce the lubsidy on butter, if it will not indeed abolish it altogether. Though the retail price of butter may be increased under a revision of the subsidy, the actual price to the consumer will really be reduced. It seems reasonable, however, to expect that the subsidy will be discontinued. Mr Massey belifffes that it may not be impossible to reduce the total subsidies by £750,000, in which case he flatters himself that he will be able to reduce taxation by that amount. The expedient involved in the payment of these subsidies is mischievous and inequitable. If it was a sound principle it should be applied to other primary products. Even the suggestion of that exposes the impossibility of such a general application. At best it was a temporary pedient of doubtful value. Its continuance in present circumstances is calculated to delay a return to normal conditions, and it is therefore to be hoped that the whole system will shortly give place to unfettered trade. -All things considered, it is highly questionable whether interference by the Government with the free course of has been advantageous. Certain evils or difficulties may have been temporarily' disguised, but on the other hand unexpected complications have arisen directly out of the policy of interference. On the whole, therefore, it appears advisable to return, at the earliest possible moment, to the welltried principle of freedom of trade.