THE PREMIER AT DUNEDIN.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1410, 27 October 1885, Page 3

THE PREMIER AT DUNEDIN.

The Hon. R. Stout (the Premier of the Colony), addressed his constituents at Dunedin on Friday evening. There was a very large attendance, and the chair was occupied by the Mayor, Mr Scouller. Un rising the Premier first of all referred to the difficulty he had experienced in determining the subjects on which he should address them, as it was impossible in a speech of two, or even, three hours’ duration, to deal with all the subjects he I should have liked to have referred to that evening. He then briefly referred to the last election, after which he spoke on the last session. His Government had done .what few other Ministries had done —they came down at once with their measures. He then continued; We considered that the customs tariff required alteration. (Applause.) We considered ithuc the land question deserved attention. We proceeded to deal with the Native question generally. We also pointed out the need of dealing with the subject of land transfer, insurance companies, postal notes, federal council, fisheries encouragement, forest conservation, and the constitution of the Legislative Council; and looking at our programme now, I confess it seems to me that we sketched out too much work considering the Parliament was only to be in session some three months. In fact our programme—if you compare it with the programmes of parliamentary sessions of the neighboring colonies cf five, six, and seven months—shows that we proposed something like double the work that is usually performed, Now I must take some of these subjects seriatim. The question of rAXATiojr hud to be dealt with, and we recognised ■ that 'whut Lord Sherbrooke said about a Chancellor of the' Exchequer was very

true of a Government namely, that “ The Chancellor of Exchequer having to impose taxes, he is a machine entrusted with a certain amount of misery to distribute, and it is his duty to distribute the misery as equally as possible.” Now, it may be asked, Why is additional taxation necessary ? Now, first, we are continuing borrowing*, and every additional million means at least £40,000 a year additional taxation, because even where the million is for reproductive wont a time has to elapse before that work can return any interest. Whether the money is all spent on reproductive works or not, I shall have to point out when I come to deal with the question. We have to continue raising £40,000 additional eyery year for every million we borrow. Then there is another thing. The number of children in the Colony is continually increasing. This means, of course, £4 a bead for every one that comes into our schools, and the education vote is yearly increasing as our population increases. Then, also, as our population increases the wants of the Colony increase. We have demands for additional post-offices ; we have demands for telephone stations ; we have demands for a hundred and one things that the Government are supposed to look after. All this means, What? It simply means additional expenditure of public money. Now, there is another matter that comes in, bearing on the question of taxation, and it is this: As the (industries of our colony increase our imports necessarily decrease; because, as we know well, every new industry started means that we import less from foreign countries ; and the less we import from foreign countries, the less, necessarily, the customs revenue must be, and the money must be made up in some way. Then another thing that has to be considered, I am glad to slate, is the decreasing consumption of intoxicating liquors.—(Applause.) Of course, as their use decrease there is less customs revenue, and the difference has to be made up in some way. But there are some people who say that our CUSTOMS REVENUE hafl been steadily increasing—our customs taxation has been increasing. Now, in one respect that is true, and in another that is not correct. We have increased our customs duties on various occasions. We increased them in 1874, we increased them in 1879, 18S0, and 1881 ; but the amount per head that the people are called upon to pay to customs revenue has not increased. I have statistics here that will take too long to read. I shall only mention two or three figures but I shall Land the whole of them to the newspapers to publish them if they think fit. In 1870 the customs revenue per head to the population was £2 13s 7d per year, whilst now, notwithstanding the increase that has been made in customs taxation, we have only £2 6s 6d per head. So that the customs taxation per head has decreased from 1870 to the present (iewe 7s Id, and it is incorrect to say that the taxation in this respect has kept on increasing. Well, we had therefore to meet this question of additional taxtion and how did we propose to meet it? We proposed to do what Lord Sherbrooke said should be done. We wanted to distribute the misery of it equally all round. We, therefore, proposed to raise something by customs duties. We proposed also a tax on what were called deceased persons’ estates in this way ; If large amounts of money were left by deceased persons part of it should go to the State treasury. We proposed an amendment of the Stamp Act, and we proposed dealing with the Property Assessment Act; but how we proposed to do that I shall state further on. Now, our customs tariff, remember, is meant to got money. The object of introducing our Customs Tariff Bill was to gel money, and not to deal with the question of Protection and Freelrade to which I shall presently refer. THE TEA DUTY. In proof of this I need only tell you that we proposed to pul 2d on tea, and some, people thought that was an enormous tax upon tea. In fact, to hear them one would imagine that the country was going straight somewhere I need not Well, gentlemen, now what about this 2d per pound on tea ? The lea, from the time the duty was taken off, has fallen something like 4d and fid per lb ; so if we restored 2d duty on tea it would not fall upon us consumers any more than when the tea duty was taken off in 1878. Here again I want to point out, from statistics 1 shall give you— and some of which I will hand to the newspapers if they will be kind enough to publish them, —what the consumption on tea has beeo per head of the population, and what the duty per head has been on every pound of tea. In 1876 6 851bs of tea were consumed per head by the population of New Zealand, and the amount of taxation on that through the customs was 3s sd. Now the people use more tea than they did in 1876. Now the consumption is 7 *22lb, but the taxation they pay per head is only 2s fid—or, as you will see, Is per head less of duty than they paid in 1876. Then let me also say this : that you have to consider, when dealing with this question, that for any ordinary family lib or l£lb of tea per week is sufficient to use ; in fact, if they use more than that, I don't think it is doing them any good—(laughter) ; and that only means 2d or 3d per week. And is it possible for a moment that 2d or 3d per week was going to injure anyone in this community ? Gentlemen I would be sorry to think it would. 1 am afraid that all of us spend more money than that during a week usalessly. Well, I only point out this in reference to tea because the proposal to restore the 2d duty was used against us. But I am afraid that politicians are only men—only mortal; and some of them, thinking of what would please the people, were against it. Now, gentlemen, any vote I give I am not afraid to explain in the presence of the people, and I am prepared to say that the tea duty was not an unfair duty, but a legitimate tax, and it would not have injured any man in tbit Colony. No« let me say further that in considering the tariff we had this also to consider : that chamber of commerce after chamber of commerce—the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce for one—set itself to dealing with this tariff; and if you will take up the reports of meetings of that body you will see that they condemned that tariff frdm top to bottom -said that it required amendment here and amendment there, 1 reinember one particular person at a meeting of the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce produced two sorts of sere we, and, showing them to me, said : “ Thla pays duty, and

that does not.” I said, “ Why is that.?” and he said, “ i don’t know.” So in reference to cotton goods, ironmongery, and other article* ; they said, “The tariff requires revision.” Then again, what I said when a candidate for Dunedin East, I repeat—that any Ministry dealing with the tariff must look at it as to how it affects the rising industries of the Colony—(applause)—and that if any Ministry neglects that it neglects its duty. Gentlemen, what is the object of taxation or a customs tariff? No doubt the primary object is revenue, but when putting it on for revenue we should look at the industries likely to be fostered—encouraged, and not injured. It was on those lines we framed our customs tariff. We distributed it equally, and our aim was to hold out inducements to the enterprising manufacturer to start industries in this Colony. He wants skilled labour, and has many difficulties to contend with. Unfortunately, perhaps, for ns, there are many of us who get so accustomed to use tariff articles that we won’t look at Colonial-manufactured articles. Well, the manufacturer here has every difficulty to contend with before he can get his industry started. Wo, there fore, in framing our tariff looked at how it would affect the rising industries of this Colony, and I think if the people are wise they will insist on any Ministry dealing with the tariff taking the same view of it. —(Applause). HOW THE TARIFF WAS LOST. Now let me tell you how our tariff was lost. There are in the House soma members who call themselves Freetraders. I believe they are in the minority. (Applause). There are some who call themselves Freetraders, but they are not consistent Freetraders ; that is, by consistent Freetrader, I mean ideal Freetrader. What I mean is this : a man who desires to see the functions of the Government limited, who says it is not the functions of the Government to interfere with trade or manufactures, and that it should have nothing to do with manufactures or industries. Now, when a person says that I understand his position at once, and I have great sympathy with his views, and if we could only get the functions of a Government limited in that way, so as not to interfere with anything, I do not know that that would not be a perfect State. But these very men are very cl amorous to get Government to make a road or a railway. Why should Government interfere witli a road 1 What is the object of a road but to promote agricultural settlements and industries, and what is that but interfering with industries ? So that if you say that Government ought not to interfere with trade or manufactures, then 1 say you will have to limit Government’s functions in a dozen ways—you would have no railways, post-offices, no roads, and many other things I could name,—(A Voice : “ No Lawyers.”) Well, I don’t know that the State keeps lawyers.— (The Voice : “They would not be required.”) That would be a very happy state ; but i don’t know hov; you would like to live in it, though. Now this knot of Freetraders started like this : They formed what is called a caucus. Now a caucus of members is this : Two or three members who consider themselves very important meet, then go and state to the correspondent of some paper. “ We have had a meeting.” Accordingly after the raeetthe Opposition weie waiting, of course, to see anything in which they could take a move. And remember this, the leader of the Opposition is a declared Protectionist, and many of the Opposition who follow his lead are Protectionists. But what waa done was that two or three declared B’reetraders like Colonel Trimble and others on the Government side of the House and Opposition formed and called themselves the great Freetrado party. They watched for a move every day, and carefully considered what should be done. Let me state that they came to us and said they didn’t like our tariff. I then said we would consider it, and agreed to alter it. Knowing that some of the items m the were tariff indefensible, I frankly stated so in the House. Though wo altered our tariff, the Freetraders on the Opposition were willing to consider no modification. And what was seen in the House? Why, this, ladles and gentlemen : For the sole purpose of injuring the Government, for the sole purpose of defeating the Government, the most rabid Protectionists of the House voted against our tariffsacrificed their Protection principles simply for the purpose of defeating the Government. Gentlemen, that is not a new trick that has been played by the lender of the Opposition, In 1878 the Grey Government introduced several taxation proposals ; one of these was the beer duty. The leader of the Opposition objected to that very strenuously then, though he intended, had ho remained in office in 1878, to have proposed the very same tax himself. But in order to injure the Grey Government, to do whut is called “ spoiling theirfinance,” he opposed the tax. Let mo digress and tell you what “spoilinga Government’s finance” means. It means this ; That if a Government cannot get the requisite amount of customs revenue or taxation they hope at the end of a financial year there is a deficit, and this is used by the Opposition as an argument to show how the Government have mismanaged their affairs. Now let me show the consistency of that Opposition in 1879. The rejected beer duty of the Grey Government was actually introduced by that Opposition when they came into power and carried. And I say this ; if the Government are defeated next session and go out of office, the succeeding Government will have to introduce an amended Customs tariff, and it will be on, the lines of the one they voted against last session. Now, gentlemen, 1 do not intend to go further into the tariff question to-night, because I have so many subjects on which to speak—because I have so limited time, and my voice, perhaps, is limited. Let me say this, however, that no country will be permanently great if it depends on only one or two industries. Our wool has gone down, our grain has gone down, our frozen meat industry bos not come up to expectations, and what is the result ? We have suffered, no doubt, as all the world has done ; and those distripts in the Colonies where industries have been greatest the depression has been intensified. A French writer saya that the functions of the State may be looked noon as fourfold. 1 am not concerned to discuss his theory to-night, but I will take his definition to point out some things, and I think it is very applicable. He says ; “ Perhaps one of its main functions is to maintain individual rights, Tha State

ought to augment these, and not decrease the matein'. intellectual, and moral power of individuals. Then the second duty of the State is to protect interests. The third duty is to exercise an intellectual and civilising function, and the fourth duty is to maintain its own entity. Now, I apprehend that all of ue present, except those who think the State should have nothing to do but simply maintain interests, and who would reduce the State, as Professor Huxley in one of his articles called “ Administrative Nihilism,” will admit that this is a convenient way to look at the functions of the State. Of course under the first head the rights of individuals have to be guarded ; under the second, as the protector of interests, we have to look after such functions of the State as post-offices, railways, telegraphs, insnrance, subsides to steamers, and other things which go to make up government action. Under the third head, the civilising and intellectual functions of the State in education ; and under the fourth head we have to look how to best keep it politically intact, {To be continued.)