THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1923. THE ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18787, 14 February 1923, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1923. THE ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

The first attack upon the Government in the present special session of Parliament was launched yesterday. The

speech in which Mr Wilford proposed his motion of want of confidence in the Government seems to have been one of his general election speeches, somewhat revised in order to bring it up to date. It attacked the Government on the grounds, among others, that it is a minority Government elected on a minority vote, that there is a pressing necessity for electoral reform, that the incidence of taxation discourages enterprise, strangles industry, and consequently causes unemployment, and that the admitted savings in expenditure during the current financial year constitute a confession of absolute guilt of extravagance in the past. In some re-

spects the criticism in which Mr Wilford indulged was perfectly sound. But it may be seriously questioned whether he is the person, or whether his party is the party, from which it should have emanated. It is a fair retort to his gibe respecting the needless expenditure of the past that neither he nor his party rendered useful assistance to the Government in its determination to carry out a policy of retrenchment. Moreover, the Liberal Party has identified itself with proposals the execution of which would inevitably have cast fresh burdens upon the taxpayers, and not least of all upon the small farmers, and the humbler classes, for whom Mr Wilford’s heart is burning, if we are to take at

its face value everything that he said yesterday. There is no financial authority who does not acknowledge that the system of taxation that obtains in the dominion is seriously defective. But the incidence is broadly that which

the Liberal Government in the past accepted, and a change from the system ot company taxation, the evils of which, while it is imposed on its present scale, are sufficiently manifest, was opposed by no one more strongly than by Sir Joseph Ward when he was Minister of Finance. The needs of the Treasury are of such a character that revenue must be secured in large sums, and it is important that respect should he paid to the argument that the cost of collection of taxation from individual shareholders in companies, even

if the yield should be as large as when the taxation is collected at the source, would be distinctly heavy. We recognise the defects and the evils of the present system, hut we have to admit

that t.ho opponent* of a change present a case which at least merits inquiry. Mr Wilford’s advocacy of proportional representation is of recent origin. So newborn is this faith in electoral reform in this direction as to suggest that it is inspired by considerations of political expediency. The Australian politicians and electors who have had experience of proportional representation have lost the enthusiasm they onee had for it, jmd.wo find it difficult to resist the contention that, however valuable il miebt be in combined urban constituencies in the dominion, it would prove highly unsatisfactory in the rural constituencies, which would have to he of huge extent in order that the system might bo suitably applied to them.

Mr Downic Stewart, who replied to Air Wilford, put the discussion on a different plane. His speech was in effect a plea for the abandonment of the

three-parly system in favour of a system under which the supporters of a constitutional democracy would he combined against the Communists or extreme Socialists. It was perhaps somewhat strange that a member of a Government defending itself against a motion of want of confidence should take t!i is lino. It was, however, merely an emphasising of the overtures that were recently made by the Reform Party to the Liberals. So far these overtures have met with no encouragement from the Liberals as a party. But Mr Stewart pointed out what is perfectly true, that even if, as ho anticipates, the Government survives the present attacks upon it, it is imperative that the party in power should have a fair working margin in order that it may be able to carry through difficult and intricate legislation. Whatever the result of the divisions in the present session may be, no party will be in possession of a fair working majority unless there is some fusion of elements that are not funda--mentally opposed to each other. Mr Sidey claims that the Liberal Party stands for certain defined principles, and apparently the assertion of this claim is to bo regarded as justifying a course of action which may actually imperil national interests that are held by Liberal members themselves to be of the highest consequence. It was made clear by Mr Downie Stewart, in an important passage in his speech, that the Reform Party is not seeking support from the Liberals with the ignoble motive of simply making its own position secure. There was, said Mr Stewart, not one of the subordinate members of the Government who had not placed himself in the hands of the Prime Minister, and agreed to stand down, as ■ the Prime Minister was prepared himself to do, if the objective of bringing a stable ministry into existence might thereby be attained. This declaration was a highly notable contribution to the debate. It may well to that it is in no other way than by an acceptance of the offer of the Reform Party, in the spirit in which it is made, that a solution of the political problem of the present time can be found. If any criticism respecting this offer rs permissible it is upon the score that it was not made earlier. We .suggested to the Prime Minister three years ago, when the General Election placed an overwhelming majority at his command in the Lower House, that a great opportunity was afforded to him of placing himself at the head of a party which would be in truth a national party. Unfortunately narrow views and petty prejudices operated to prevent a consummation of this idea at that time. The’ trend of political development in the British dominions is, however, towards the elimination of superfluous groups. The argument that it is so is not negatived by the existing state of things at Home. The broadening of the franchise there has been so recent that the full effect of it has not yet been manifested. Sooner or later there must be in Now Zealand, as has just occurred in Federal politics in Australia, a fusion of the parties which are opposed to a programme of Communism. And a wholesome regard for national interests suggests that a development of this description in New Zealand should not be wantonly postponed.