TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 35, 10 August 1927, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

Being bound by a former promise, the Government had no option but to give its consent to the erection of the Citizens' War Memorial in front of Parliament Buildings. . Its doubt of the suitability of that site was, however, plainly indicated when Mr. Hurst Seager was asked to report upon this plan and the bigger Mount Cook proposal. Mr. Seager's report endorsed the Mount Cook scheme, condemned the Parliament Buildings site, and proposed a plan by which the symbolic memorial could be embodied in the greater scheme. In spite of this, tho War Memorial Committee, without ascertaining the opinion of the contributors to the fund, has insisted upon adherence to its original plan. This means perpetuating division and dissension. There will be two memorials and two sites, when there should be unity. The War Memorial Committee's latest action looks like closing the door against any attempt at harmonising views and opinions. In such a cause such an attitude is regrettable. Conciliation would have been more seemly. • * »

Members of Parliament are expected to make sure of their facts before venturing on criticism. This duty seems to have been overlooked by Mr. H. G. R. Mason in his criticism of the Press in relation to the work of Children's Courts.

There was (he is reported as stating) too much publicity of children's cases, more publicity than there had ever been before. He expressed the opinion that there should be no publicity in such eases except by permission of tho presiding Magistrate. According to another report, he also condemned Press reports of eases in the Children's Courts as equally as demoralising as some picture films. What | Press reports he refers to we do not know. Under the Child Welfare Act the Press representatives havo no right to be present at proceedings of the Children's Courts, and it is expressly provided: Save with the special consent of the presiding Magistrate or Justices, it shall not be lawful for any per- i son to publish a report of any pro- j feedings taken before a Children's Court; and in no case shall it be lawful to publish the name of any child, or of its parents or guardian, or any j other name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the child. By this section the discretionary power formerly exercised by the Press (and. on the whole wisely exercised) was withdrawn; and the responsibility for publication or suppression was transferred to the presiding Magistrate or Justices. So far .as we are aware the latter have shown no disposition to favour publicity unduly. Mr. Mason has been criticising wildly and without a basis of fact. His opinions must bo discounted accordingly. * * « Though the Minister of Finance may say that most of the recommendations of the Taxation Commissions have been adopted, the fact remains that the most important proposal has not been brought into operation. Mr. Sidey's criticism is largely justified. The investigations wero made with a view to effecting necessary changes in the incidence of taxation. As we pointed out at the time, such investigations could not be complete under an order of reference which excluded indirect taxa- | tion. The balance of direct and indirect taxation is surely a matter for consideration, especially when the Government professes concern for the family man and quotes income tax concessions as evidence. Such concessions do not, in the average income, compensate for the contributions of the family man through Customs duties. But even the main alteration in incidence which could be recommended by a Commission with a limited order of reference has been rejected or postponed by tho Government. The unfairness of the present system of company taxation cannot be defended, 'li.o savings and investments of men of small means are taxed at the maximum rate in many instances. The Government is a party to a procedure which forces the poorer investor to pay some of the wealthy man's tax. It allows this to continue on-the plea (which was foreseen by the Commission) that a complete change wouia involve a loas of revenue of about £.1,000,000 per annum. Unless the Minister of Finance can offer some more convincing defence he must admit that tho Government is wholly unequal to the task of devising a more equitable system which would avoid this' loss. • * * No sound argume.its have been advanced by those people who urge that hospital rating: should be on a basis of incomes or population instead of capital values. On the other hand, as tho Minister of Health has shown, there are many arguments and authoritative opinions against such a change. At present hospital expenditure is provided in approximately equal proportions by general taxation (through the Government) and local rating. In-

comes (by inoome tax) and to Borne extent population (through Customs duties) are therefore assessed indirectly. Moreover,' as the local rates are upon capital and not unimproved values, the big enterprises of the towns contribute their share. If a change were made to the income basis it would be necessary for the General Government to undertake the collection, and this would mean the end of local control. Population would provide no better basis for levies, since it would leave the larger centres with an obligation to provide hospital iaeilities for scattered districts without an adequate contribution. In such circumstances the centres would object, with some justification, to the sharing of benefits. Before such a change can be considered it must be shown that it is more equitable and workable than the present system. At present the proposal appears mainly as an attempt by one section to pass the burden on to others.