MR POLSON'S CAMPAIGN.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19918, 3 May 1930, Page 17

MR POLSON'S CAMPAIGN.

TO THE EDITOR, OF TUB PRESS Sir,—Tho reports of Mr Poison's speeches are very interesting, but it is difficult to discern whether Mr Polsoii is speaking as the Farmers' Union president, or as the M.P. for a North Island constituency. We farmers are certainly going through difficult times, and are quite ready to listen to anyone who will tell us how wo can cure our troubles. But during this tour the .P r ®f d^ na i f telling us one story, while in the House

as an M.P. lio actetl and voted almost diametrically opposite to his present opinions. Take the wheat question for .one example. In Invercargill Mr Poison is reported to have said: "We, who had hoped to lower tho cost of bread, had to be satisfied with this small concession to the farmer (the duty taken off bran and pollard), but we could reserve our right to fight the matter further. A reduction in the price of bread is a necessary reduction; and there is no doubt that this will mean an exhaustive review of the whole question of wheat duties." . .

Now, in Parliament, when he had an opportunity of voting for an amendment, which was supported by all those who wanted a reduction in the price of bread, Mr Poison voted with those who were in favour of the sliding scale of duties. In other words, while Mr Rushworth voted against the sliding scale, Mr Poison went into the lobby with the United Party Ministers. Take another, perhaps a more glaring, example from the Invercargill speech: "Mr Poison said he had made a study of the taxation systems of other countries and he had found that many of them adopted the principle of reducing the tax on necessaries, and increasing the tax on luxuries. That, in a word, was the policy he was proposing to-night.'' In his elaboration later on, he specially mentioned American motor-carfc and silk. Now let- us see how Mr Poison voted in the House. In Hansard, volume 223, page 905, will be found Mr Coates's amendment to the Customs Amendment Bill (which was increasing the primage duty on all goods). This is the amendment:

"... in the opinion of this House such increased revenue should be obtained from taxation of luxury items, particularly those of. foreign origin, and not on articles affecting the coat of living and production." It looks as if Mr Poison has been studying that amendment, rather than the systems of foreign countries. Did Mr Poison vote for the excellent amendment of Mr Coates? No! But Mr Rushworth did. Mr Poison again voted with the United Party Ministers, and with the Labour Party. Mr Poison changes his mind so oft/m that it is difficult to know what he really does mean. Personally, he is a likeable man, but it is evidently a bit awkward being an M.P. and the Farmers' Unnn president at one and the same time.— Your., etc., james

Invcrcargill, - May Ist, 1930.