TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 24, 28 July 1927, Page 10

TOPICS OF THE DAY

"It is a matter for the Legislative Council, but the farmer should certainly have some say in the matter." This was Mr. Hawken's reply to a Farmers' Union delegate who asked how the Daylight Saving Bill could be blocked. Probably the Minister meant nothing—except to be diplomatic and conciliatory; but if his words were intended to convey the meaning which appears on the face of them, then a wrong principle was enunciated. .Farmers, as electors, have already had their say upon the Daylight Saving Bill, and a House which is claimed to represent the farmers' viewpoint strongly has twice in succession approved the Bill by large majorities.' No Legis-" lative Council can now advance the argument that the measure should be rojeeted because the farmer should "have some say in the matter." Last year the Council rejected the Bill on the casting vote. An argument used to justify this reversal of the will of the House was that there had beon no time for full consideration of the measure. More time has thereforo been given, and the House, having heard whatever the country- wished to say, has confirmed its approval. If the Bill is not now accepted it must be evident that the Council will never be satisfied—even if sixteen years' consideration is made sixteen centuries. The plea for time will be a plea for eternity.

Yesterday's meeting of tlio City and Suburban Highways Board appears to have left the business in some confusion. Authority is still to be sought for a loan of £100,000 and an addition of 10s to the liccnso fees; but the programme of work .as been altered. Widening the Hutt road and paving-the cycle track are abandoned. Provision is to be made for paving in Ngahauranga Gorge and an extension to Tronthain. An exact statement should bo given showing how these alterations affect tho estimates. "We agree that tho exclusion of tho cyclo track from a programme chargeable to motorists is

necessary. The road-widening proposal is not, however,''in tho same category. Sooner or later this widening will bo imperative, and it would bo wiso to malco provision now. Tho revised programme, however, bears signs of hurried preparation, and it is not the best argument to submit to motorists with the proposal for an increase in tho liconso fee. It should bo supported by carefully prepared estimates, and such detail as will convince the

motorists that nothing lias been overlooked. The objecting motorists, and tho plebiscite of nutomobilo club members, appear to us, not so much opposition to the present 10s proposal na a protest against tho practice of "cut and come again." Most payers of duos realise, wo belicvo, that good value has been given for 30s, and that tho oxpendituro has saved them many times that amount, but they fear that when tho 30s is raised to £2 it will be found that something has still boon forgotten or unprovided for, and then another 10s will be sought. The only effective answer to this fear is careful preparation of tho wholo schemo and a clear statomont. It would help materially in proving good faith if tho bill were also to proposo fair representation of tho taxpayjng car-owners.

Tho pitfalls of hasty consideration could not bo better illustrated than in tho docision to exempt motorists in Wharoorn, Taupo, and Horokiwi Hidings from, tho additional payment. Without question these motorists, on tho average, obtain less benefit than many others from the expenditure. But if the principle of differentiation is onco conceded, where ia it to stop? Admittedly the owner of a motor-lorry in Plimmerton, making an occasional run to 'Wellington, paya more than his sharo when compared, say, with a carrier who makes numorous trips to Trentham or Eastbourne. But is the Plimmerton owner more unfairly treated than tho ■Wellington grocer, butcher, or baker with half-a-dozen delivery vans which nevor move beyond the city boundaries? If one is to be exempted, why not the- other? Further, if exemption is granted on the plea of little benefit, why not impose an additional fee whore the maximum advantago is gained? Why should the daily user of paved roads pay no moro than tho week-end user? We are quite prepared to admit tho inequality inseparable from a flat-rate, but the Board is piling up trouble for itself if it departs from that flat-rate, without introducing a scale charge which takes account of all users. Those not included will now begin to make trouble—and with reason.

In actual practice tliero are two values for land—the buyer's and the scllor's, or it may bo the taxpayer's and the borrower's. Theoretically the State valuation should bo between these two extremes and should bo a fair productive value. Yet how is productive value to be determined when prices may vary—even between seasons—by enormous percentages? If the average over a series pt seasons is takon the

effect of tho abnormal year is reduced, but it cannot be wholly eliminated. This is the problem with which the Valuation Department is faced, and members of the House yesterday suggested nothing likely to ease the Department's difficulty. There is now a clamour for revaluation, and if the Government yields to that demand and orders the work to be done hastily there will probably be more complaints. We doubt very much if there is so much ground for complaint as the noise ivouia suggest. Land-tax has been so reduced directly ana by mortgage exemptions that it is not the burden that it once was. In most cases it is not a burden comparable with rating, and valuation does not affect rating unless there are marked differences within rating areas. If the whole of a county is over-valued all ratepayers are on the same basis, and reduction of their valuations will afford them no relief. As we read the complaints they are not of unequal values within counties, but of general excess valuations. This being so, the complaints should be made to the county councils who collect the rates. It is merely clouding the issue to clamour to the Government, which has already reduced land-tax.