"KEEP COSTS DOWN."

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 230, 28 September 1929, Page 7

"KEEP COSTS DOWN."

THE FARMER'S BURDEN. EFFECT OF SUPERTAX. REFORM LEADER'S VIEW. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Friday. Increasing costs in all directions, particularly those of local rates, have, in the opinion of the Right Hon. J. G. Coates, created a serious situation for the farmer, and for that reason he again urged caution in accepting the new land taxation. The supertax would force land on the market, and the inevitable result would be depression of land values. From the widest viewpoint of the country's prosperity it was desirable not to increase costs ■of production. There -was never an occasion for greater caution when our wool prices were down and some lines of meat were depressed. The Cry Against The Squatter. "There has been an impression created against the farming community," continued Mr. Coates, "that they have ■been getting away with something they are not entitled to, and that the large landowner is a curse and has prevented development. When members speak of aggregation and large landowners and connect them with a political party there is something in it. If the Government deems it necessary that landed incomes should pay taxation, then exactly the same principle should apply to the" rest of the community. The priniple ()'. ability to pay should be kept n the forefront of all our endeavours." Mr. Langstone: You have never practised what you preach. Too Much Expected. Mr. Coates retorted that all the speeches on his side of the House had gone to the very vitals" of the question, but. the members opposite had not attempted to reply. (Government laughter.) They just threw over the old cries of "aggregator" and "wool king." The sense of fair play .which dominated every British Parliament should be exercised on this occasion. Answering an interjection from the Labour 'benches, Mr. Coates declared: "I was expected to do in three years what had not ; been done in the last twenty years." Mr. W. L. Martin: You had a bad team. Mr. Coates (emphatically): I wall never admit that! Mr. McCombs: It was tihe other way! Mr. Poison Congratulated. Mr. Coates said the bill was unfair. It was absolutely essential in the interests of the whole country that the primary producers' costs should be kept as low as possible. Incidentally, Mr. Coates congratulated Mr. Poison (member for Stratford) on his speech on the bill. Mr. Clinkard (Rotorua): No doubt. A wobble. "I wouldn't call it a wobble," replied Mr. Coates. It took courage to express honest opinions, and Mr. Poison had done that after making a careful examination of the proposals of the Budget. Mr. Parry (Auckland Central): Or was it that the criticism was effective? (Laughter.) Fair Chance To Compete. The Leader of the Opposition said Ms statement that costs must be kept down was founded on 12.000 reasons. In the first, place, the New Zealand farmer should have a fair chance to compete with those who were living right alongside the world's markets. The Reform party always had been, and always would, 'be heart and soul with the farmer.. The Prime Minister: With the large landowner. Mr. Coates: I did not catch the honourable gentleman. Mr. Coates said his party had always been with the farmer, and, although the farmer might have found fault, the course of the Reform party had 'been perfectly steady. In connection with land and costs its policy had been sound and progressive, although possibly it had not been fast enough to satisfy political considerations. "I say it is of no use for the United and Labour parties to shelter behind the hardship clause," continued' the Opposition Leader. "They cannot get over an injustice with a hardship clause." Mr. Parry: A hardship clause was all right for the railway workers! A Case Of Hardship. Mr. Coates said he would give a-typi-cal instance of what would happen undei the bill. He had in mind the case of a young fellow who a year or two age might have put.£4ooo or■£5000 into a sheep property, thinking it a good proposition. Under, this bill he woulc become liable for (say) £200 additional under the supertax provisions. He ruighi be unable to pay it out of income, having insufficient revenue and might also b« unable to pay it from an overdraft oi be unable to raise a loan. Being unabl< to pay the £200, his case would be on< of hardship. The young, fellow .mighi go to the Hardship Commission anc they might eay he came under th< clause. The " House lulled itself int( thinking that the hardship would lei him out.- That seemed to be assume* by everyone. But was that the trui position? The supertax of £200, capi taliised at 5 per cent, amounted to £400< on that property. That.meant the pro perty had a liability of £4000. Th< unfortunate farmer might wish to maki a sale. Could he get the. £4000 back: He would find that his equity in th( property was gone. He would be ruined and the £4000 liability remained onthi property. The unfortunate thing wa. , that not only could the farmer not ge : his money back, but a permanent lia bility remained, and an impost wa: placed against his property for all time which any subsequent buyer would taki into consideration. The hardship clausi was not worth a snap of the fingers. What Of The Clause? Mr. Parry: No; but it was all rigfr for the dog! The Prime Minister: Very well, then we will have it taken out if the Reforn party is unanimous in asking for it. Mr. Coates (stepping out from behind his desk): Is that the right honourabli gentleman's opinion of fair play? Sir Joseph Ward: Oh, I am just tak ing your statement for what it is worth Mr. Coates: Would the right honour able gentleman say it was fair to takt it out? Sir Joseph: But you are asking m< to take it out. , Mr. Coates: No; it seems the right honourable gentleman is not even pre pared to give the Comnvseion to eee fail play is done! Sir Joseph:: You are asking us to le , it go. Mr. Coates: If this House expects any thing from its leader, it expects fron him "equity and justice, not injustice This just'shows that the designers'o the bill have not taken into considera tion the effects of the proposed legifila tion. It is not fair.