The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23. 1929. STONEWALLED.

Evening Star, Issue 20313, 23 October 1929, Page 8

The Evening Star WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23. 1929. STONEWALLED.

It is quite evident that the Opposition intends taking full advantage of all the forms of procedure to prevent the super-tax on land being made Law. It is just over a month since the Bill was introduced, and the first evidence of holding-up tactics was Mr Coates’s prompt request that it should be referred to a Parliamentary Committee for the purpose of hearing evidence from prospective taxpayers. Had that been agreed to the committee would probably not have been nearly through its task by now. Mr Coates at the time was accused by the Prime Minister of working hand in hand with a small section of the community to kill the Bill. He sought to ridicule the charge, but his subsequent actions whenever this measure has been under consideration must to the unbiased provide ample confirmation of Sir Joseph Ward’s view. The second reading debate extended over three sitting days, principally because of the loquacity of the Opposition members, and Mr Coates unsuccessfully renewed his attempt to bar progress by having the Bill referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Now the main opportunity for the reactionary forces has arrived. The committee stage has been reached, and the Bill is being stubbornly stonewalled. In the regrettable absence of his chief, Mr George Forbes is taking charge of the measure. He has numbers on his side, fon Labour is in solid alliance with the Government on this particular question. But time is on the side of the Opposition. The more of it they can waste the better the chance of the session ending without the removal of an undoubted blot on our taxation system, so complacently tolerated by Reform when in power. The country will largely judge the present Government by its determination to pit obstinacy against obstinacy, wear down the stonewall, and insist on the measure reaching the Statute Book this session. Stonewalls are just as much a confession of weakness, as a display of doggedness. In the great majority of cases they crumble at last apd fail in their aim. > Mr Forbes'has now a great

chance of demonstrating to whom the leadership of the United Party should revert if Sir Joseph Ward’s health unfortunately proves unequal to the strain of office.

It is quite evident that the Opposition, and particularly its leader, has been keyed up for the occasion. It is equally evident that logic and a fair survey of the facts will weigh little with those determined to wreck the Bill. After a maximum of time had been unnecessarily consumed in discussing just-introduced amendments — which, we hope, comprise the Government’s limit in the way of concessions and ameliorations —the Bill was at,’ length committed, and in Mr Coates’s opening contribution to the discussion occurred the following statement:—

The Opposition would not object to the Bill if the injustices were removed. Why the farmers should be selected for such a savage attack and others allowed to go free was beyond all comprehension.

The veal facts, of course, are that this is a Bill to.remove injustices. The Bill is going to affect only 15 per cent, of the farmers, and its purpose is to collect taxes from those who have hitherto * been allowed to go free. The reason %hy they so long escaped is beyond all comprehension, unless the late Government should see fit to explain—and that is not at all likely. We feel constrained onco more to recall tho memorandum of the Commissioner of Taxes to tho effect that only 25,000'0ut of 80,000 farmers in New Zealand pay either land tax or income tax; that the reduction of the mortgage exemption will increase the number of farmers paying land tax by about 550, and will increase the land tax already payable in only 1,650 cases, while in most ot these 2,200 instances the farmers would b© affected to only a slight extent; that only large holdings will be subject to super-tax; and that returns of income will bo required only from farmers owning or leading large holdings. “It is absurd, therefore,” wrote the Commissioner of Taxes, “to suggest that a huge burden will be placed on the farmers of the dominion.” A great deal of the Opposition’s objections have centred round tho mortgage exemption. It is particularly interesting, therefore, to hear the Commissioner of Taxes on this phase of the subject:—” Many taxpayers by mistake did not for years after 1924, when tho mortgage exemp tion was increased to £IO,OOO, claim the mortgage exemption, and paid land tax on the full unimproved value of their land. This indicated that, al though mortgages existed, the owners were quite able to pay. They were greatly surprised subsequently to learn that no contribution, or only a small contribution, to the revenue was re quired from them. It should be clear that the mortgage exemption has been on too liberal a scale.” Thus the post tion is that the immunity from taxation which the Reform Government so adroitly bestowed on a section of large landowners in 1924 was such ns to be beyond the latters’ comprehension,-and Reform members now wish the com munity to believe that it is quite be yond comprehension why the Ward Gov eminent intends to disturb that immunity, or comparative immunity. Mr Forbes put the position very plainly last night. Through neglect to collect sufficient revenue the Reform Government bequeathed to its successors a deficit. The Ward Government sought a source of the necessary additional revenue, and found that some oi those best able to pay had cithei been contributing nothing or far less than their fair share. Had there been no need for additional revenue it would still have been tho obvious duty of tho Government to end this piece of misgovernment; for favouritism in the im position of taxation is one of the worst forms of misgovernment. But, as the finances of the country stand? the imperative course is to do as the Government is doing. The matter becomes one of urgency, and the Opposition’s conception of its duty to the country is a stonewall. The grave injustice ot 1924 is to bo brazened out: the first principle of sound government—that Budgets should be balanced—is to be flouted; the cardinal law of taxation—that it should be applied in proportion to ability to bear it—is to be turned upside down. The party putting up a fight for this is fortunately in a minority in Parliament, and it would be to the lasting discredit of our system of government should the majority frustrate the majority over so vital a matter.