INCOME TAX. RUMOURS OF IRREGULARITIES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 62, 10 September 1910, Page 9

INCOME TAX. RUMOURS OF IRREGULARITIES.

DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT. MORE INFORMATION WANTED. Mr Massey, last night, took the House of Representatives back to the enquiries concerning the Land and Income Tax Department. He remarked that it was common gossip that other firms, in addition to the one that had been recently prosecuted, had been guilty of irregularities. They had exerted political pressure to enable themselves to escape. He was repeating what was said outside. Members of Parliament were connected with those firms He would iike to have some details- from the Prime Minister. THE PREMIER'S REPLY. Regarding irregularities in the Taxation Department, the Prime Minister said he had already furnished full information to the House on the subject. If the Leader of the Opposition had any information regarding any member of the House he ought to furnish it. Nothing on those lines had been brought under the notice of the Government by the head of the department. As to the enquiry held by the Supreme Court judges, he was not going to make any names or any fuller details public, even in spite of street gossip. The department was the custodian of the affairs of every taxpayer in the country, and it would be dangerous to admit the principle that because of street rumour details should be made public which would not otherwise have been disclosed. He would not disclose confidential information. As far as he knew no political iiifluen.ee had been exercised in the administration of the department. If the House chose to pass a resolution saying that the taxation papers of members of Parliament were to be laid on the table of the House, though he might not look upon it as a proper thing, he would have no hesitation in seeing that it was done, in order that they might have the opportunity for once of allowing everyb'joy to see what everybody was doing in that respect. MR. TAYLOR WANTS THE DETAILS. Mr. T. E. Taylor said if he were leading the Opposition he would hold that it was the right of every member to have access to every bit of information that came into the possession of the Cabinet from a public department. The Executive held that they had a right to stand between the people's representatives and certain things that happened in connection with public departments For instance, in connection with cer-iain Income Tax Department matters, many more things were enquired into than had yet been reported to the House, and they were very important, and he could not imagine why the House was not informed of the facts disclosed. The charge of partnership by the head of the department in a business concern was made and proved. Why was not the House given the details of that affair ? The Commissioner also was charged with having allowed a certain adjustment of account, and having received a monetary consideration. Why, he asked, should such matters be kept secret ? They could all be made public without putting anyone's taxatiorj figures before the public. Publicity was the healthiest thing in the world for all public affairs. Supposing a wealthy man in Wellington was allowed to pay income tax minus the usual penalty for late payment. If any consideration was paid for such a privilege, how could it be said that anybody's, private affairs were being enquired into or disclosed ? The House liad a right to know whether officials had extended special consideration to persons of influence and wealth. The matter that came before the recent Public Service Board of Enquiry could be made public without disclosing anything regarding any person's private affairs, and he urged that these matters were ot such importance that they ought to be placed before the House. PRIVATE AFFAIRS. Sir Joseph Ward, speaking at a latexperiod of the debate, said he was not going to be placed in the position of being charged with keeping anything back. If they ever had a man in power who wanted to go poking his nose into private affairs it would be a good thing to remove the department from Ministerial control. He had always taken up the attitude that he would never ask for details of persons' private affairs, nor had he had referred to him the taxation papers of any person or company in the Dominion. He was asked why delay took place in regard to a case which recently was investigated in the South Island. There had also been a suggestion that consideration had been paid in a certain case. As to those cases, he wanted to say that as soon as he heard of them he sent them on to the Crown law officers for investigation. If members of the House could get information outside him, that was their business, but he was not going to supply such information. The recent Public Service enquiry had reported that in none of the cases brought ' was there any evidence of corruption on the part of Mr. Heyes. Mr. Fisher : Then ■ what was he dismissed for ? Sir Joseph Ward : Did not I give the House the reasons for. his dismissal? They were in connection with the Valuation Department. In no case, h<» added, had he been called upon as head of the department to decide any matter in relation to taxation. Because there had been trouble between officers of the department, he (the Minister) was asked, in his place in the House, to say who was affected, and what were the charges against persons whose names had never been before the Board of Enquiry. Because an officer had got into trouble he was asked to make public the affairs of private people. It would not be proper for him to go into details of that description. The chairman of the Commission of Enquiry had written to him, stating that the report was written on the assumption that it would not be published, and, said the Prime Minister, it could not be expected that anyone should ask for the publication of tha private affairs of any taxpayer. Mr. T. E. Taylor : We don't want figures. It's a question of misconduct. Sir Joseph Ward remarked that any question of misconduct could be investigated in open court. Everyone doing business with the Tax Department ought to feel absolutely assured of the secrecy of that department, and the Opposition ought not to take any step which would tend to make any breach in that secrecy because of a dispute between officers. Mr. Hcrdman : Why not give facts without giving names? Sir Joseph Ward : I am not going to do it, because it would be a wrong thing to do. He was amazed, he said, that any such suggestion should be made by any member of the House. If any member submitted a resolution to that effect he would provide an opportunity for debating it. What amazed him was that he should be askad to pive away what the chairman of the Board of Enquiry had said would have put the board in a very awkward position if it had contemplated the possibility of the report being mad© public.