LAND AND INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 13596, 3 December 1909, Page 7

LAND AND INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT.

THE CHARGES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION.

FURTHER MENTION IN PARLIAMJ_NT.

(!?EC)AL TO "THE peebs.") WELLINGTON, December 2. In the Houso of Representatives this evening, speaking on the Imprest Supply Bill, Mr Masscy, Leader of tho Opposition, made further reference to the charges levelled against tbe administration of the Land and Income Tax Department. Every individual in tho country knew that something was wrong. What did Parliament know? Tho Prime Minister had informed the House that there was & probability of legal proceedings. If there wero to be ono or more Court cases he (Mr Massey) would not 6ay any more while the case was sub judice. If the matter was not to bo settled in tho Courts, then Parliament had a right to know, about it. Mr Massey was careful to mention that he was not asking for any of tho names mentioned in tho judges 'report. The Prime Minister, speaking later, said it was difficult to give effect at present to Mr Massey's suggestion. The responsibility devolved on the actinghead of the Department in respect of matters brought up as the result of the enquiry. It was for this officer to decide what steps should be taken, and he had to act- on legal advice. He (the Prime Minister), as Minister in charge of the Department, was not interfering as to the proceedings that might or might not be taken; that was entirely a matter for the Executive Officer to deal with. The acting-head of the Department, who was a gentleman sworn to _ecrecy, would go into any matters he thought necessary and advise the Government. The judges' report could not possibly be laid before the House, because it contained names and references to private matters. A member: "We don't want names." The Prime Minister said the report could not be laid on the table, because he could not give away confidences. It was suggested that names and figures should be left out, but the report would then be useless. If a coherent outline of the proceedings was to be given, tho names might just as well bo included. If information was to be given with regard to these private affairs, it would bo good-bye to the confidence which the public had in the Department. If trouble should arise in regard to the enquiry, tho onus of dealing with it was on the executive, and if there was any dishonesty or anything wrong, the responsibility was on the Executive to do their duty in the matter. To lay the report on the table with the names deleted would he useless, because the judges referred distinctly to the evidence, even in the summing up, and it had to be read in conjunction with the evidence. The matter was one of very great importance, and the Government could be depended upon to do what was right in the matter. It was not possible for him to say what Court case might or might, not take place; that was a matter entirely for the legal gentlemen who advised the ' Department, and not for the Government at all. Mr Herdman, in the course of his speech, also referred to this subject. There were rumours, he said, about town, and also in the House there were allegations that the irregularities were of such a grave nature that an enquiry by two judges was considered necessary. The public had a right to know what was taking place. The names might be concealed and private transactions might be covered up, but they wanted to know what had taken place to cause the Government to take such an extraordinary step as to order the investigation of the administration by two judges. The Commissioner of Taxes, who had been suspended for three months, might be perfectly blameless for all members knew. The judges spoke of his high capacity, his competence as an administrator and his skill. In justice to Mr Heyes, tho facts of the enquiry should be made known.