“OH, NONSENSE!”

Evening Star, Issue 20292, 28 September 1929, Page 4

“OH, NONSENSE!”

PRIME MINISTER'S RETORT REFORM ALLEGATION DISCREDITED [From Ocb Parliawlektaey Reporter.] WELLINGTON, September 27. There were shouts of protest from the Government benches in the House of Representatives to-day when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Coates) suggested that the effect of the proposed land super-tax was already being felt in the country. Ho said it was not fair _ that _ landowners should be loaded with this heavy additional taxation without warning. “The effects are already being felt, and the reaction has set in throughout the country,” said Mr Coates. “ A falling off in trade has been suffered by chemists, jewellers, shopkeepers, storekeepers, and tradespeople.’’

The Prime Minister: Nonsense. The Chief Government Whip (Mr Murdoch) : Do you mean since this Bill was brought in? Mr Coates: Since the Budget proposals came down. The Government members laughed at this.

Mr Coates said the member for Marsden need not sit there smiling. If that member got up and gave his opinions it could be said that lie was doing his strict duty. (Laughter.) Unemployment had already been affected.by the proposals of this Bill. The Prime Minister (impatiently): Oh, nonsense, nonsense! Mr Coates; -May I say in reply to that interjection that every farmer who becomes liable for this tax immediately attempts to adjust it. Why should the farmer be selected for this tax? Why should he be singled out for this impost? It was true that necessity overrode private rights, but if it was necessary in the interests of the State that land should be taken for closer settlement, and that the private individual must meet the position, it must ho insisted that a private person should be entitled to compensation for anything that might bo to the advantage of the State. Had the Prime Minister decided what “farm lands” were? . It should be remembered that some farmers would have holdings of a very mixed type—perhaps 500 acres of forest, 500 acres of bracken, fern, and titree, and a good quantity broken in as the result of the expenditure of capita). How was that position going to he met? Was the farmer going to be taxed for having planted or preserved trees? There must bo a clear conception of what the Government wanted to get at. There was idle land available for settlement. The co-operation of the Crown and the private individual could put that right. Then there wore other improved lands suitable for closer settlement. How was that land going to be dealt with? That brought up the question of classification. “No purpose can bo gained by taxing land that is not suitable for closer settlement,” declared the Leader of the Opposition. “Encouragement should bo given to those who are on the land to go ahead and increase production—to turn wilderness into an oasis.”