DISCUSSING THE BUDGET

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 185, 7 August 1925, Page 8

DISCUSSING THE BUDGET

END OF THE DEBATE.

i KB. HOLXAJTD OK MR. ISITT. | PPJME MINISTER'S SPEECH. (Y.j Tptesmph—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTOK. Thursday. Mr. 11. Mcßeeii. Wellington South, -peaking in the Budget debate this afternoori. declared there was a shortage of 2fi.(«iO bouses in the Dominion, and thousand- of people were waiting for loans from the State Advances Department. Jf the Minister of Finance would assist, and the .Minister of Public Works would put the resource? oi the Department at tin- dii-po»a] of those dealing with the problem, that problem would h? solved in a very short time. The Ooverninent reduced taxation on racing clubs, but when lhe question oi doing something in the interests of the workers arose, they pleaded that they had no money. Noticing that ?u'r. i_oate= was the only MLnifcter in the Chamber, Mr. Mx-Keen drew tiie attention of the House to the fact, baying that it showed how inter-c-ted ihe (iovernrnent were regarding the Budget. The whole thing was absolute bypocriHV. The Government was not sincere; it ua>- Minply marking time, un<l would l>e delighted to see every wembei of the House gel up in his turn and kill liiue for them. .Mr. A. fiaiTi.-. Wuitemata. wa» the uext speaker in defence of the Government, lie claimed that the Budget was a plain, clear and understandable statement. Regarding the finances of the country he denied tkat it war a "rich mail's Budget,"" though there wa* a proposal to make a very email, and lie thought, inadequate reduction in income tax. The Budget showed the rich man very plainly what responsibilties he had to shoulder, considering his taxation was three times more than in pre-war years, while as regard? the wager earner, the exemptions were higher than anywhere else in the j Empire. This vva* one of the few countries in which almost all the necessaries of life were untaxed. practically all foodstuff* being duty free. The working man was alto almost free of duty in clothing and bedding. The Government had attempted every year some legislation to prevent land aggregation, which was to some extent efficient. Land certainly v a» not acquired from the Crown, for the Crown refused to sell land to a man who held G4O acres of flret-elaee land. He thought • that aggregation was mostlydue to. family men acquiring adjoining ji roper ties for future benefit of their children. As for the big 00,000 acre estates wliich had been referred to, these were lands, in the Southern Alps for instance, utterly unsuitable to be cut up, and not worth more, than half a crown an acre. He claimed the Government had done more towards solving the housing problem than any other Government before it. He suggested that the Government should raise money for housing by local bonds, and have houses erected in groups on a standardised plan, which would bring down the cost of building. Immigration and Employment. There was no great amount of unemployment in New Zealand, and he thought we could could absorb far more people than were now being brought out under the immigration scheme. He hoped that the Government would push on with the scheme. Not only did he not think income tax had not been too 'much reduced, but he thought taxation should be much more greatly reduced. It was a fallacy that reduced taxation reduced revenue, for it so greatly stimulated trade that revenues became buoyant, and the country prosperous. In M*2l from a tax of 7/4* in the £, the sum of £3,831,932 was derived. In 11)23, the tax was reduced to 0/10 2-5 d in the £, yet it produced £3,781,53:2, or only about £50,000 less than the previous -year. Last year a further reduction of the tax to 4/10 2-3 d in the £ produced no lees than £3.803,052, though the reduction of tax totalled 20 per cent. He thought income tax could be well reduced to 3/0 in tbe £. On the other hand the incidence taxation was inequitable in that rich men on the land making as much as £20,000 a year did not pay a penny. True, men on the land paid land tax, but so did businese men who paid very heavy laud tax in addition to income tax. He would admit that many farmers were paying too much land tax, not because taxation was too high, but because they were taxing on 100 high values, which was a good argument for revaluation of the lands of the Dominion. He thought this was the only country in which individuals had to pay income tax, and were taxed additionally as companies. In England, shareholders were taxed on their total incoine3, but in New Zealand companies were taxed as individuals, and in most cases on the highest scale, though the shareholders ■were largely poor men, each holding only a few shares. The Australian CommonwealtbTaxation Commission 'had unanimously reported against company taxation, and the New Zealand Committee on taxation had shown the small shareholder drawing £10 in dividends, had to pay at the same rate as the large ■shareholder drawing £10,000. The committee had reported agftinst the inequitable system whereby every £1 of income drawn from companies by shareholders, paid as much as £11 of income drawn from other sources. The present dual system of taxation was a deterrent to investment of British capital in New Zealand. Mr. Holland's Kegrets: "It was a pity that the debate was not allowed to finish on Tuesday," said Mr. Holland. Apparently because the member for Christchurch North missed the. gallery, the debate had been allowed to drag on. He agreed that while a night should not be wasted in reading the Budget. It was as painful to the Minister to read as it was for members to listen to, for the sake of the Minister alone, the reading should be cut. The Leader of the Opposition admitted that company wanted it abolished must see that each taxation was unscientific, but those who ' individual paid his fair share of taxation according to his income. The member for Waitema-ta had said that although the tax was reduced 20 per cent, there was no very great reduction of the' tax collected. That was evidence that there had been a great increase in incomes, and this was an argument against any further reduction in income tax. Whatever the House did, the members of the Labour benches would fight any further reduction, because war-time liabilities remained, and unless this was reduced, the Government could not reduce taxation to one section without imposing disabilities upon some other section. Referring to the allegation that the electors of Franklin had rejected Labour's land policy, Mr. Holland said that only- one paper, the Auckland •"Star." , had given a report of his speech. Then for reasons over which the reporter had no control (the lights in the hall suddenly -went out), the report was not complete. -~""'jr Sr&^teiSJ^i

A statement of the policy supplied ' to the Auckland "Herald" wa? denied publicly. Mr. Holland then went on to assail numerous papers -which he mentioned for having refused to report tbe Labour party, and demanded that as these papers received concessions through the Post and Telegraph Department they should impartially report all parties. He denied the allegation that the Labour party had announced it \vould pay for all resumed land in bonds, and said the announcement was that it did not. anticipate difficulty in paying cash if land was reEumed, but would reserve the right to pay a portion in bondn. Mr. Holland then turned his attention lo the member for Christchurch North, who had the previous night attacked the Labour party. The speech of the honourable gentleman reminded him of tbe statesman of whom it was said he was inUixicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity. Gifted with Huch a sensitibe imagination he could at all times command an interminable series of arguments to malign his opponents and glorify himself. (Laughter.) It was the same old talk, the same old froth, the same irresponsible charges, the same lifting extracts from their context, and the same reckless handling of facts which was hie characteristic There was scarcely an epithet he hurled at the Labour benches which he had not hurled at the Liberals under Ballance and Seddon, and scarcely one be had not hurled at the Reform party in days gone by. He talked about the cross materialism of the Labour party. One would have thought him ii sincerely religious speaker lecturing a party. Not his best friends, or even hiw worst enemies could accuse him of being eiueerely religious. He. did not think any gentleman in this country had done so much to damage the cause of religion as the honourable gentleman. He listened to him last night accusing the Labour party of perpetuating hatred, while his own speech reeked with hatred and iuJs-stateinent after mis-Btatement. He said as far a* the forms of the House permitted the Labour party were traitors to their country, that it repudiated contracts, having Haid which in his extraordinary hypocrisy he assured us he was not making a personal attack but only on our policy. Mr. Isitt: What about my questions? Mr. Holland eaid when lie put questions in respectful language he would get a respectful answer; when he put questions in intentionally offensive terms then 'the Labour party would give no answer. The Labour party wase sick and tired of studied discourtesy and bad manners of certain gentlemen who in one circumstance were as courteous and plausible as possible, and in another as offensive as possible. Mr. ] B itt had accused the Labour party of go-slow, but there is not a member of this House who gives less Parliamentary service than the hon. gentleman, caid Mr. Holland. Mr. Armstrong: Or any other service. Mr. Holland: If he was paid according to service he would not be able to pay his bill at Bellamy's bar. (Uproarious laughter.) Mr. leitt once said it was politically immoral for Conservatives to combine with Labour, that you could not mix oil and water. Now he ie one of those who wanted to combine with Reform for tne purpose of voting against Labour. When he goes home tonight, will he charge himeelf with being politically immoral? I euppose he will console himself that there is a distinction between political immorality and the other kind of immorality. (Renewed laughter.) Prime Minister Steps In. The Prime Minister observed that Mr. Holland could derive much knowledge from the interesting speech of the member for Ohriefcchurch North. It wub strange that, no matter what had been said about Mr. Maesey's party, Mr. Massey had Jed his party into Liberal legislation beyond which even the hon. gentleman would hesitate to take his party. Mr. Massey always eaid this was the true Liberal party, though Mr. Holland had talked about it being the Tory party representing vested interests. Mr. Holland: I never used the words, "Tory party." The Prime Minister claimed that the Reform records showed that it had been a progressive and liberal party in every way. "What appears rather extraordinary," he said, '"is that the hon. member for Buller did not reply to questions put him by the member for Christchurch. North. Mr. Parry: Do you reply to questions put to you? Mr. Lee: What about the Wyndham tStreet building? The Prime Minister: I will deal with the hon. member for Auckland East later on, as one comrade dealing with another. Mr. Holland: Would you mind telling us if those questions were typed in your office? The Prime Minister: I tell you they were not, whether you believe it or not. I only saw them a few minutes ago, because I asked or 1 was interested as to why you did not answer them. Mr. Holland: Did you hear my statement to him as to why I wouldn't answer? The Prime Minister: They are questions which I think the leader of the Labour party ought to take the trouble to reply to. Mr. Holland: Is there any question to the leader of the Labour party in the document you've got there? The Prime Minister: They are questions put to the Labour party. The Speaker: Order; this is not the time to argue. Mr. Howard: What about that viaduct? The Prime Minister said the viaduct referred to was one that cost £100, but arrived too late to take the place of a certain bridge, and "was stored in the railway yards and painted. i Mr. Howard: And it took nine years to do the job. The Hon. ""ifosworthy replied to the debate in the early hours of this morning and the House then adjourned.