POLITICAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8528, 4 September 1907, Page 5

POLITICAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

(From Oar Parliamentary Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. CONCERNING THE TARIFF. "Is it proposed to take any steps to ensure the people, for whom the remission of Customs are primarily ; being made, reaping the benefit of ; those remissions?". I asked the Minister of Customs the other day. "What steps-can be taken'.'" he ' queried in reply.; adding, "There is ' competition; will not that have the .desired effect?" My answer was another question, "•'Did it have that effect when the last remissions were made some years ago?" Investigation and nractical experience showed me that it did not, and I pointed out to the Minister that most people were well aware that competition entered very little into the matter inasmuch as tradespeople quietly established combination to reap the chief benefits of Customs remissions at the expense of the consumers whom they were inaid, especially the working people. I then asked whether it was not possible for the Government to devise some means whereby the prospective beneficiaries would be protected.

The Minister said the question was one very difficult of solution, and he did not see what could be done beyond reliance upon trading competition. "You are doing away with hundreds of thousands of pounds of revenue for the specific purpose of lightening the burdens upon the community—to cheapen the present excessive cost of living," I remarked. "Do you think you or I, as householders, are likely to gain anything substantial by the reductions proposed in the tariff?" •> "Well, perhaps not very much," was his laconic reply. "Then what earthly use is there in wasting revenue and time in proposing and debating these remissions?" I finally asked. At this stage the Minister, who is the personal embodiment of courtesy, was suddenly called away, and so my question remained unanswered. During the discussion of the Tariff Bill members have urged upon the Government the importance of "giving time for the clearances of stocks before the remissions take place, and the Treasurer has admitted the fairness of the demand where considerable stocks are held. Traders and importers, it is contended, should not have a direct loss forced upon them by any arbitrary alteration of the Customs tariff. No one will gainsay this. The consumer has no right in justice to be benefited at the expense of the traders, but the trouble is that the stocks held at the time of remissions are usually so large that it takes years to clear them off. This, at any rate, is the impression one gathers from past experience of remissions of duty. It is noteworthy, however, that one never hears any member of Parliament making an effort to protect the consumer against the added charges of the importer or middleman where the tariff rate has gone up instead of down. In that case the increased duty necessarily takes effect at once, and at once up goes the price of the extra-taxed commodity, entirely regardless of heavy stockage; and the consumer is forced to pay a tax upon goods which has never been demanded or paid by the vendor. It appears, therefore, whether an exrta duty is imposed, or a total or partial remission is made, the trader is enabled to play a game with the consumer of "heads I win, tails you lose!" And the Government and Parliament, professing a devouring anxiety to act fairly towards ail classes, and above all to protect the workers of the colony, view the position wi*h a sang froid that smacks of incapacity to deal with this important question, or places their professions in the huge category of political sbams. *A POLITICAL SHAM. Talking about political shams brings up a very recent example. A few weeks ago when the Pure Food Bill was before the Legislative Council, the Attorney-General indicated that he intended to embody in the Bill a provision that would ensure to every purchaser of a loaf of bread the exact weight it purported to be. A sort of minor millenium for housekeepers was looked for. It was fully expected that for once there, would be a provision that would give effect to the professed intention. One would imagine that if there were to be 110 more shamming about the weight of bread, there would at least be no more shamming about the law that was to overcome the sham. But, alas! Sham is bsing added to sham, and the housekeeper's milleninm is not —if the Bill is passed in its present form—-to be yet! The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and after that body had made various technical improvements and rendered - the operative clauses more stringent as regards foods and drugs, it at once set about discouraging reform by reducing the penalties for breaches of the law. The House had fixed a £2O fine as the maximum in a first offence and a £SO maximum "for any subsequent offence, whether of the same or of a different nature." The Select Committee struck out the increased penalty, so that a quack or unconscionable tradesman may well risk making hundreds of pcun Is upon the off chance of being lightly penalised. This pandering to the fraudulent vendor of foods or drugs having been settled, the Attorney-General's pi-o-mise respecting the weight of bread came forward as a new clause. Nothing could be plainer or more effective —"Every person commits an offence who sells any bread except by weight, or who sells any bread the weight of which at the time of sale is less than the seller represents it to be or is less than the weight which the buyer demands." For lucidity and comprehensiveness, this is a model of legal lucidity. But mark what follows. A sub-clause is attached which undoes the whole thing. The Governor may by regulation from time to time provide that any particular class of bread may be sold otherwise than by weight, notwithstanding anything in this section." This is a reversion to the status quo ante. The law is practically left in the hands of the Government to regulate as it likes, and the regulation

will probably be adapted to political exigency. The corpse of the old system of "fancy bread" will be revived, and the housekeeper's millenium will be short-lived under such a provision—if it ever comes about at all. I set out to show a political sham in connection with this Pure Food Bill. I have demonstrated two shams. FLOUR DUTY. When the occasion offers during the consideration of the Tariff Bill in Committee, Mr Hogg will again bringforward his motion for the remission of the duty upon flour. He lias probably little chance of success, because the Government will not again be caught napping: but he intends to divide the House so that a record may be made of the voting pro and con. One of the biggest fights on the Tariff Bill is likely to ensue upon this question. As bearing on what L have written above respecting the small chance the consumers have of reaping the benefit of remissions, E may cite the, views of the EveningPost in dealing with Mr Hogg's proposal regarding the abolition 'of theduty on flour. "It does not follow," says the Post, "that the consumerwould get any benefit?even if the duty were abolished, for the less than a. halfpenny per 41b loaf which it. represents, would in all probability merely enrich the importer and baker. This was the -consumer's experience in Australia when the duty on tea was taken off, the importer getting the benefit, and not the public. Theoretically every remission of duty should go into the pockets of the consumer; in practice, alas, it. does not."