THE LONG STONEWALL

Evening Star, Issue 20314, 24 October 1929, Page 14

THE LONG STONEWALL

REFORM CONTINUES THE BLOCKADE SLOW PROGRESS OF TAXING BILL [Pee United Press Association.! WELLINGTON. October 24. The House of Representatives resumed at 9.30. Mr Hamilton’s amendment to clause li. was strongly supported by Reform members. Mr Wilford stated that there was danger that the amendment would leave a loophole for collusive partner ships whereby a mau who rode about a farm occasionally could be named as a partner for the purpose of evasion of taxation. Mr Lysnar claimed that the Partnership Act should be sufficient safeguard against such practice, while Mr Poison objected to .the suggestion that farmers would endeavour to evade justice in this way. Mr Macmillan said he could see what Mr Wilford meant, but he thought the difficulty could be overcome by a strict interpretation of the term “working partner.” Continuing the debate on Mr Hamilton’s amendment, Mr Poison stated that the clause as it stood would interfere with the Empire group settlement scheme. He proceeded to deal with the previous Government’s attitude on group settlement, but was ruled out of order on the point. Tho amendment went to the division at 12.10 p.ra., when it was defeated by 41 votes to 23. Mr Lysnar then proceeded with the debate on the original clause U. There was no provision in the clause, he added, for what tho land could earn. He hoped -the Minister would make provision, and would impose the supertax on what the land could actually earn. He contended that there was discrimination in the clause, and that the town was exempted, whereas the country would have to fiay. Mr Hamilton also opposed the clause. He said it would ruin many of the land-owners on whom its conditions were imposed. The debate was carried on by Messrs Kyle, Wright, and Nash, and the House adjourned at 1 o’clock.