NEW TAXES.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19734, 26 September 1929, Page 9

NEW TAXES.

Government's Amended Proposals. PROVISION FOR HARDSHIP CASES. Prime Minister Explains Bill. [THE PBESB Special Service] WELLLKGTOIf, September 25. "I submit theie proposals- to the House with confidence," said the ]>rime Minister (Sir Joseph Wafd) in moving in the House to-day the second reading of the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill, incorporating the Government's taxation proposals as varied since the presentation of the Budget.

Sir Joseph Ward said that the new proposals would come into operation on February 19th, the date having been extended in order not to inflict a hard ship on the taxpayers. The revenue would be received this financial year, but thosS concerned would not be asked to pay earlier than under the ordinary tiieome Tax Bill. The farmers would be receiving their Wool cheques id Februaiy—» "And mortgages, too," interjected Mir H. S. S. Kyle (R., Ricearton). "I am dealing with Wool at the moment," replied the Prime Minister, who went on to say that the plea for the postponement of the Bill could no longer be put forward as a reasonable request. Sir Joseph said that as a reiult of the deputations which had Waited upon him, and correspondence he had received from all over the country, he had gone into the matter very thoroughly. The Bill now before the House differed in some material respects from that conveyed in the Budget. "I think that upon reflection members will Bay it has been desirable to give consideration to the special requests made to me," proceeded the Ptiinn Minister. Many people had been misled as to what Was proposed, but they should now be more content than when the Budget wan brought down. A reference to the Bill would show that the mortgage exemption was made £7500, decreasing £1 for every £1 of value in excess of £7500, bo as to leave no exemption at £15,000. "I am asking the House," said Bif Joseph, "to amend the exemption for mortgaged land from the present £IO,OOO, disappearing £2 for every £1 of value between £IO,OOO and £15,000 of unimproved value to £7500, disappearing £1 for £1 between £7500 unimproved value and £15,000. The gain to the revenue under that heading is estimated at £25,000." The Hon. Mr Downie Stewart (R., Dunedin West): That is the mortgage exemption? The Prime Minister: That is the mortgage exemption. The number Of taxpayers affected, he added, would be 1800, instead of 4500, which was the number that would have been affected under the proposals contained in the Budget. «. . , Mr J. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton): What reduction of income would that mean as against the Budget propo»alt The Prime Minister: I cannot tell you at the moment, but I will do so bofore the Bill goes through Committee. The raising of the figure at which the super tax is to commence from £IZ,SUU to £14,000 will necessitate the modification of the graduation of the supertax. What lam recommending is that the supertax rise 1 per cent, for every £SO of unimproved value from £I4,UW> to £16,500, at which figure 50 pe* cent, will be reached, instead of at £lo,ooo wider the original proposal, and thereafter a further 1 per cent, for every £270 of unimpoved value from i,16,0uu to £30,000, at which point 100 per cent, will be reached. The supertax received under this scheme is estimated at £300,000, instead of £325,000 under the orginal proposal. The number of taxpayers affected will bo approximately 1450 instead of 1750. Sir Joseph said lie was proposing to make provision for a hardship clause. He was recommending that that should apply to supertax only. The increased tax payable as a result of the modified mortgage exemption proposals would not be serious. As the object of the supertax was the obtaining of additional revenue as well as the encouragement of the subdivison of holdings, it would appear that reUef would be granted only in cases where the exaction of the full amount of supertax would entail serious hardship. If other considerations, such as the suitability for subdivision, previous offers to the Government or prospective buyers, and subdivision since March 31st last were to applv, it would appear that injustice as between one taxpayer and another would be unavoidable. Such considerations would have application even to the existing land tax, which was graduated in order to induce subdivision. i He was recommending in the Bill the appointment of a Commission to deal with applications for relief under the hardship clause, as the cases would require careful consideration, and he would be unable to cope with the difficulty without the assistance of a Commission in addition to the Commissioner Of Taxes. The income-tax proposals for the larger farmers would add considerably to the work of the Department. As time would be required to deal with the cases of hardship, he was recommending in the Bill that the date for the payment of supertax be fixed at February 28th next. The due date for the payment of ordinary land tax had been fixed as November 7th. The demand forms to go out for the ordinary tax had been printed. Those *who adversely criticised the Government's proposals were recommended by Sir Joseph to examine the system in operation in Australia, both in regard to Commonwealth and to State taxation. The comparison would be shown to be greatly in favour of New Zealand, yet in this country there were people who had largely escaped taxation during the last ten years and who were now complaining at the proposal to impose a just taxation. "The number of farmers affected by the altered proposals contained in the Bill is 2400," said Sir Joseph. "That ig, 1400 by special land taxation and 1000 by mortgage exemption. I would suggest to members taking up a cry on behalf of a comparatively small section of the community that they should be just in their criticism. They have not been just."

Mr W. D. Lysnar (R., Gisborne): In what way!

Sir Joseph Ward: In every Way thatingenuity can suggest to them to misrepresent. Comment was next made by the Prime Minister on the resolutions handed to him on behalf of the Christehurch Chamber of Commerce, In that Connexion Sir Joseph quoted the following observations by the Commissioner of Taxes (Mr E. J. B. Cummings): "It would appear that what is wanted by the Chamber is a hardship clause, which will have the effect of converting the special land tax into an income tax, by enabling the Commission to take into consideration the earning capacity of the property and other relevant circumstances. ''

"The hardship clause already provided in the Bill," Bttifl Sir Joseph, "goes some distance in this direction —as far as would appear desirable. Some of the cases brought under notice by Mr Norton Francis, president of the Chamber, will, no doubt, be favourably considered by the Commission. It is not possible to say definitely without a full statement of assets and liabilities and other particulars of each case. Some of the cases will not be met by the hardship clause. A land tax is being Imposed, not an income tax. With land tax cases of hardship from an incomeearning standpoint are inevitable. They occur with the existing land tax. If a taxpayer cannot show that the payment of the tax will cause Berious hardship, I do not see on what grounds relief from land tax can rightly be given. "It Is alleged that Canterbury land is highly valued by comparison with land in other parts of New Zealand. The statement may be correct, but I would point out that the remedy is in the hands of the owner. He can require a revaluation to be made, object to the valuation if he considers it too high, and if the Assessment Court does not give hirn satisfaction he can, under Section 45 of the Valuation Of Land Act. 1025, require the Valuer-General to refer the matter to the Government with a vfew to the acquisition of the land, or to reduce the value.

"One of the Chamber's resolutions concludes with a proposal, 'That the Commissioner of Taxes shall be bound by the finding of the Commission.' Under the hardship clause as it stands, the Commissioner of Taxes has no power to cancel special land tax. The Commissioner may cancel such tax if the Commission recommends relief. This is as it should be. The main desideratum appears to be that the tax should not be lightly cancelled. The Bill ensures this principle. The taxpayer has to make good his case before the Commission, and then its report comes finally before the official charged with the administration of the Act in general, including the other hardship provisions of the law. I may be able to concur in the findings of the Commission in every case, but should not be bound to do so. If the taxpayer considers he has not had fair treatment he has the remedy of a petition to Parliament." "I am fully cognisant of the distasteful nature of an increase in taxation to those whom it affects," continued the Prime Minister. "No one has any pleasure in asking any section of the community to bear an increase, but no one doing his duty could be justified in leaving the income tax as it is w|th the knowledge that so many able to pay have been escaping their legitimate contribution. I made up my mmd that when I got the opportunity I would make those pay who had beenescaping their fair share for tea or fourteen years." The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Coates): How long? The Prime" Minister: Since shortly after the war was over.

Mr Coates: Well, how long ago was that?

The Prime Minister: Call it ten years, if that will make you any happier. Mr Coates: No, five years. The Prime Minister: Well, for so many years that you have forgotten a large section have been escaping their legitimate share of taxation toward the revenue of this country. Mr Coates: You are putting it on them now.

The Prime Minister: It affects 2400 persons. Mr Coates: It goes a long way further than that.

The Prime Minister: If we had gone as far as some members on the other side have said we would be taxing half New Zealand. I am prepared to accept the statement of a disinterested official as to the number affected as against the unanimous outcry of my friends opposite, who have been trying to convert it into a hideous number. They say it is robbery. Mr Coates: A raider.

The Prime Minister? It is a blessing to this country to be relieved from the Administration of those who think as the right honourable gentleman does. Mr Coates: Does the country think that?

The Prime Minister: I am quite sure it does. I judge that from my correspondence.

Mr Coates: You are living in a fool's paradise. The Prime Minister: I am prepared to accept the soft impeachment of the right hon. gentleman, for he has had more opportunity than I have had td live in a fool's paradise. I submit these proposals with confidence to the country. Although a combined effort was made to stir up antagonism, it was almost ludicrous to note the similarity between the meetings arranged—one day in the south, next day in the north, the next somewhere else, winding np with a fandango in Wellington, whero they gathered the travelling representatives who were being used to proclaim to the world that the Government's proposals in regard to land and income tax were not acceptable to the country. The proposals are now submitted, and I can tell by the feeling of the House that some members who are going to vote against the proposals are praying to Heaven that something will happen in the interval to relieve them from placing themselves in such an invidiou* and unenviable position.

EX-MINISTER'S ATTACK.

INJUSTICE ALLEGED

[THE PRESS Special Service.]

WELLINGTON, September 25.

BILL DENOUNCED.

A vigorous denunciation of the proposals in tha Bill was made by the Hon. Mr Downie Stewart (R., Dunedin West), who followed the Prime Minister.

Mr Stewart expressed doubt whether the House Would pass the legislation in its present form. He said that in j quoting examples as to how the land tax Was going to. work, the Prime I Minister, in his second reading speech, had confined himself to the smaller groups, where the increase was not i really thl point at which the taxation reached ft savage limit. (Hear, hear.) i It Was now proposed by the Prime Minister to postpone the payment of the supertax until February 28th j next, and also to listen next week to any representations in regard to the hardship imposed. While the Commissioner of Taxes had been apparently so overwhelmed by the instances given in th§ House as to suggest that there were hardship cases that would not bo met by the hardship clause, the best suggested remedy offered was that farmers adversely affected should petition Parliament for relief. That was indeed an extraordinary proposition. Petitions to Parliament for relief Usually arose from the imposition of some unforeseen injustice, but where the House, With its eyes open, inflicted what was not only a hardship but ah injustice, it was a different matter entirely. Mr Stewart said he took it that practically everybody in New Zealand believes in closer settlement, the cheeking of land aggregation, and the stimulation of land subdivision. The Bill, however, seemed to him to be based on some unproved assumptions, and was not scientific in its construction. It hit out at random without any regard as to how it would affect the individual brought in under its scope. (Sear, hear.) The proposals went on the assumption that all the large farming lands were capable of subdivision, but it was well known that there were some lands the configuration of which was such as to render roading and subdivision an uneconomic proposition. The Prime Minister had not indicated whether the Hardship Committee would deal with that problem. If they were to do the work, the enquiry should precede the imposition of the taxation. Then again, if all the lands were suitable for subdivision, the further question arose as to* whether in the general interests of New Zealand all portions should be subdivided, since right throughout the Dominion the smaller farmers drew for their annual supplies on the larger stations, where special breeding of high-grade flocks took place. It was an imperative necessity to the smaller farmers to be able to improve the Btandard of their flocks, and the grade of their wool. While it might be a policy cry to declare for the cutting-up of the big properties, Mr Stewart thought that, having regard to New Zealand's destiny and its position as a primary producing country, it was a matter for grave consideration that the estates should be cut up ruthlessly and without mature consideration. It was a fallacy to suggest that the matter need not be considered because the number affected by the proposals was email compared with the total number of land-ownerß. Mr Stewart continued that it was indeed a strange pass for a Parliament to come to if it were to hold that because the affected group was small it was a matter of indifference as to whether that group was subjected to justice or injustice. "It is an extraordinary and monstrous proposition," he declared, "yet we hear it advocated by some or the members opposite. The Government has failed to realise that there is a fundamental difference between hardship and injustice. If Parliament, with its eyes open, inflicts taxation that will absorb the whole annual value of a man's pro?erty, it is a case of injustice, to which arliament should not lend itself." (Hear, hear.) If it were the case that some large land-holders were not paying their fair share of taxation, it might be suggested that he was to blame for not, when Minister for Finance, seeking to remedy the position. Mr Stewart said his answer to that was that while he held the portfolio, fanners generally were passing through hard times, all his enquiries having shown that, taking an average over a period of years, the handsome profits of one term were not maintained, and that many had to pay their* taxation out of capital. The payment of income tax in preference to land tax was not objected to by the large land-owners. In fact, they pre-' ferred it, and in that regard there was no real grievance against the Bill. The problem was, however, to draw the line, because the smaller farmers preferred the land tax. Referring again to the proposal to force subdivision by the imposition of a special tax, Mr Stewart said that , every tribunal of recent years which had investigated such matters had , pointed out that land aggregation in New Zealand was no longer an evil, and that the graduated land tax was no longer necessary. Assuming, however, that the graduated land tax was still required as a precautionary mea- j sure against future aggregation, Mr Stewart's complaint then was against the increase in the land tax in the higher grades. It was really a savage tax, that appropriated the whole annual value of a property, and was for the first time in New Zealand to be applied. It simply made properties j worth nothing to the owner, and a j positive burden to him. If the pnQciple were wrong, he again affirmed that it did not matter whether those affected numbered 2000, 10,000, or ten. The tax had gone up by more than five per cent, on the unimproved value of the property, and if local rates were added it would be found that the burden became intolerable. In the higher grades the taxation would become a process of confiscation. It would have the effect also of forcing the sale of the lands affected at the one time, without taking regard of the power of the market to absorb them. ] A proper and scientific method would BUggest) the imposition of reasonable taxation on the higher grades first, and then gradually to work downwards to the others. The effect of throwing all the properties on the market j simultaneously would be to lower not i only the value of the areas affected, but of all the lands of the Dominion. Mr Downie Stewart drew attention to the fact that both local bodies and ; the Government were, in regard to 1 taxation, reaping in the same field. Local taxes were mounting up so steadily that it was impossible for both Government and local authorities to continue in land taxation. The Government, of course, had recourse to the income tax, even if the local bodies had not. Another point about the Government's taxation proposals was that in the case of some farmers, land had been taken up on the payment of a small deposit, leaving a heavy mortgage to be reduced, yet the Bill would give them little chance of getting ahead of it. . .

'FKBS3 ASSOCIATIOH TXLXGtAK.)

Labour Viewpoint.

Mr Stewart referred to the existing safeguards against the growth of landlordism, and said he had always admitted that the graduated land tax in the cities had been inequitable when it penalised businesses that had branch offices in different centres. Town and country should be placed on the same footing in regard to the graduated land

tax, and if farmers Were to be required to pay income tax or land tax on the "whichever is the greater" basis, then the farmers should also be allowed the 5 per cent, exemption on the capital value which was allowed in the eities. Mr Stewart contended that where closer settlement was required was in the lands not affected by the taxation proposed. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon): Does not the Government's experience in the Feilding district suggest that there is a market for land?

Mr Stewart: They say there is a market, but they do not know how much land they are going to force upon itMr Stewart predicted that no individual would buv blocks of land forced upon a full market, when he knew that bv biding his time the Government must take it over and make it available at a cheaper price. The Minister for Labour (Hon. Mr Veitch): Oh, that is too thin! Mr Stewart: I think it is perfectly obvious. He concluded by Btati&g that it was unfair and inequitable that the section of the community coveted by the proposals should be singled out for penal taxation, just as though they were a menace to the community, and their existence not justifiable. Althtfugfi the pdint had been raised previously, the Government Still had nothing to say to tire suggestion that a classification of lands should be made before the tax was enforced. "1 think the House Will pausfe long, he added, "before the House passes this legislation in its present form.

Mr M. J. Savage (Lab., Auckland West) stated that he had not considered it fair in the past that taxation paid on income earned from land should not be the Safhe as that paid on income earned in the city. He had always been of the opinion that taxation should be based on the prift- ■ ciple ef ability to pay. It had seemed , in the past that the landowner was receiving better treatment than the man in the city, but now that the new proposals were under consideration there was an outcry that laftd* owners were being more harshly treated, and that they desired the same conditions as city people. Mr Savage said he favoured the Bill, because it gave some effect to the principle of ability to pay, but he regretted that Sir Joseph Ward had amended the proposal to reduce the mortgage exemption to £SOOO, and had now fixed the sum at £7500. He approved of the principle of breaking up large estates. He considered that we should aim at a uniform system of taxation, applicable to all incomes, whatever might be the source, whether town or country. There were owners in cities of very highly valued areas of land, from which they derived huge incomes, and the question arose as to whether it was right to exempt thai class of land from the operation of the supertax. Subdivision Often Useless. Mr J. A. Young (R., Hamilton) spoke of the uselessneaa of breaking up certain classes of land, and Stated j that subdivision would only depreciate ! the value of the land. Even If such properties were large, they should not come into the taxable category. The answer given to this objection was a hardship clause, but the principle of the clause was wrong, for it did not clearly express what constituted hardship. The clause referred to "financial position," which was a rough and ready way out of the difficulty. Continuing, Mr Yonng said that the Prime Minister had stated that comparatively few landowners would be affected by the proposals. If that were put forward as a defence of the increases, it was wrong in principle, and it was unfair to those who were affected. The Mon*y-I«ender. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) said it was agreed that additional revenue was necessary. It had been stated that produce prices this year might be less satisfactory than last year, and that landowners would, therefore, be less able to meet increased demands on their resources. If prices did fall, the Government would also lose revenue, and there would be even greater need for extra taxation. Mr Armstrong asked in whose interest was a hopelessly mortgaged property exempted from taxation! The man who was straggling in vain to meet the interest bill would not benefit; his taxation bill was nothing compared with the interest bill. It was the money-lender who would derive any benefit. Mr Armstrong added that he- was not entirely in favour of the Bill which he considered did not go far enough, because it contained no proposal to increase the tax on large incomes. However, taking the good with the bad, the Bill was an improvement on present conditions, and went a little way in the direction he desired. Mr Lyanar Attack* Bill. Mr W. D- Lysnar (Ind., Gisborne) stated that he regarded the Bill as a grave and far-reaching measure, and he thought that the proposals were ill-ad-vised, confiscatory, and extreme. If the legislation were placed on the Statute Book it would drive many farmers into the Bankruptcy Court. He did not regard it as an equitable BilL It would not encourage people to take up-land. At the present time there was a demand for dairying land, but not for sheep or pastoral country. There was plenty of tho former class available for closer settlement, without the application of the measures contained in the BilL

LITTLE MARGIN FOR CONCESSIONS.

Mr F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) said he considered that the Prime Minister should not have departed from his original proposal in regard to mortgage exemption. He expressed the opinion that the whole taxation system should be overhauled, and he particularly attacked the company tax, which he described as totally unfair, as it imposed the same burden on the shareholder in a small way, as it did on the shareholder in affluent circumstances. Mr Langstone said it had been asserted that the Government's proposals would bring down the price of land. That might be a very good thing for the people of New Zealand. When land values conformed with money values • real benefit would have been ereated. Minister for lands. The Hon. Mr Forbes stated that important concessions had been mad* in the Bill, and he believed the country had appreciated Sir Joseph Ward's reasonable attitude. The Reform Party, however, had not uttered a word of thanks, and had continued to make party capital out of misrepresentation of the farmers' position. It was incorrect to state that there was any lack of demand for land. He had received letters from hundreds of young men who were anxious to get on to the land, and the most effective way of establishing them there was by Government assistance. The Reform Party had been judged on its land settlement policy at last election, and the United Party would be judged on the same basis. If it failed in this respect it would suffer a fate similar to that of th Eeform Administration. The Minister stated that he was in favour of a uniform system of valuation, and it was his intention to hold a conference wrth leading officials of the Valuation Department to endeavour to deVise a more equitable system than at present. There had been references to the classification of land, but he asked where would the Prime Minister be in raising revenue if he delayed until land classification had been undertaken. Why had not the Reform .Party classified the land while it was in oiiice?.

tFSCSS ASSOCUTIO* t*L»«*4*.)

[ Mr Poison Opposes BUI. Mr V. J. Poison (Ind., Stratfor<o ! said he believed that closer land roetifc was essential to the progress or" New Zealand. Ho had, however, t» consider the interests df farttarj, t »Md white he realised the Priiflß MmWn" had made an honest endeavour, hj« had to say that the Bill would not satisfy him. It placed too mtsahjsf '■ m burden on the work"ng fanner. Willi he had been opposed to the primage duty, he had agreed to the increase as a temporary measure, tie would hate been prepared to support some increase of taxation on larger estates suitable for subdivision, but the Bill went too far. The methods proposed amounted I to confiscation. Had the Prime Minis- ; ter gone back t© the * 19,000 mortgage exemption he would hare gene some of the way towards ridding himself of the opposition to the BilL Mr Poison eontended that farmers from one end of the country to the other were opposed to the increase in taxation as outlined in the Bill, and he hoped it was sot ret too late for some modification to be introduced* There was so doabt that land values Would fall, aad it was wrong to say that lower lan 4 values would be in the interests of tie public. High land values Were fth indication of | intensive production, and of prosperity among the general community, la New Zealand local rates imposed an enormous burden on the farming cofarnnnity, and he had hoped that the Government would have eadeavoared to take some steps in the direction of de-rating farm lands as had been achieved in Britain. United Member Defends BilL Mr C. H. Clinkard (U., Boteraa) admitted that there Were tome lands that were not suitable for subdivision, and it should not be necessary to Impose a penal tax in such instance*. Be stressed the necessity for increased taxation, and stated that it was right that the extra burden should be placed Where it Would least be felt, fie considered that land was well able to bear this burden. Personally he preferred the income tax to land tax. fie ©Ontended that prosperity did mot depend on land values, but that land values depended on the prosperity of the country. twofold PurposeMr A. Hamilton (8., Wallace) urged that provision should be included in the Bill to enable persons whose land was not suitable for subdivision to appear before tome tribunal with a claim for exemption, truer* were two main principles under the Bill; one was to tax the wealthy malt, and the other was to cut up properties, fie would have no opposition to the proposal to tax wealth, and in that case the super tax should begin after 5*20,000, but if the object was to tax wealth, then all wealth should be taxed, and not only farm lands. If the taxation was designed to eat tip large estates, he hoped it would not be permitted to kill too many in the process. Mr Hamilton concluded' by saying that the two classes that would be hit by the Bill would be farmers on large areas of low Value land and those carrying heavy mortgages. The wealthy farmer would simply pay the tax and hold on to his land.

Mr C. L. Carr (Lao., Timarn) expressed the view that there were other avenues of taxation that might have been explored. He believed that the present proposals would be beneficial, in that they would be instrumental i* breaking up large estates, and he was glad that the Prime Minister hod increased the amount of mortgage exemption from the sum ong'iuilly proposed. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 10.30 p.m.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT* [THX »HMt Syestel *sr«ct ] WELLINGTON, September 25. An intimation that after the seeond reading of the taxation Bills he would be pleased to receive for a reasonable period representations from objectors was given by the Prime Minister (Sir Joseph Ward) in answer to a question by Mr H. 6. S. Kyle (2L, Biceartoa) in the House of Bsprssentativet to-day. Mr Kyle said that on Tuesday he, im company with Mr Norton Xrand*, president of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, had interviewed the Prime Minister and placed before him the proposals framed by the Chamber. He understood the Prime Minister to promise that the second reading of the Bilk would not come on until after the suggestions had been considered, but te make certain on the point he had telegraphed Mr Norton Francis. The latter replied: "The Prime Minister said he would postpone the taxation Bills await* ing investigation of the proponed amendment." Mr Kyle said he was surprised that the Prime Minister, in the light of that statement, had allowed the seeond reading to eom* on. In reply, Sir Joseph Ward said that Mr Kyle's statement and Mr Norton Francis's reply did not affect the seeond reading time of the Bills. "I did not promise that X would withhold the Bills from their seeond reading," he added. "After the seeond reading there will be plenty of time for anybody who wishes to do so to interview me about the proposals, as long as they come within a reasonable period." Mr H. M. Campbell (B-, Hawke*s Bay): What is the last day on which you will be able to receive deputationsi The Prime Minister: Tuesday or Wednesday next. Speaking in the House early yesterday morning, the Prime Minister stated that there was little or no margin for the making of concessions in regard to the taxation- Anyone who was hoping that as a result of representations concessions would be made was expeeting the impossible. He had gone into the matter previously, and had made a* many concessions as it was safe for him to make. He could receive deputations during the passage of the legislation, and, if necessary, amendments could »• made during the Committee stages.

PROTEST FROM FLAXUXLLBM-

FOXTON, September 25At a repreeentatiTe meeting of te* New Zealand FLaxmillers' Association, held this afternoon, the view was taken that the proposed super land tax if applied to naxlands will hare disastrous effects upon the industry aa at present carried on, and also prevent flax plantations being established. Steps are being taken tb bring the matter before the Government.