Through at Last

Evening Star, Issue 20316, 26 October 1929, Page 3

Through at Last

WELLINGTON, October 25. The final stage in the long battle for the passage of the Land and Income ' Tax Amendment Bill was a vigorous speech by Mr Forbes (Acting Leadei ot the House), who had taken charge ol the measure in committee and kept ms place almost continuously throughout the many hours of discussion. He reminded members that twentythree hours forty-five minutes had been spent on the second reading of the Bill, sxx hours fifty-five xmnutes on consideration of the Government’s amendments (introduced on Tuesday), and _ 101 *>7 eight hours fifty-five minutes in the committee stage. That, he suggested was giving a good opportunity tor® mission, vet some members had actually accused Tiim of gagging tactics. i would like to know what would happen if there were no gagging tactics. \\ e would have no business done at all, said Mr Forbes. Then, ho continued, when the Leader of the Opposition, after forty-eight hours fifty-hvo minutes of discussion had asked for an extension of time it was granted. Mr Coates- What about the Leader of the Labour Party? Mr Forbes said he had spoken very little indeeo during the torty-eight hours and on merit he deserved his extension in am endeavour to record Ins views and those of his party. As tor the views of oho Reform Party, there was not a member who did not know them. They had put up the small tarmer in the front as the smoke screen but one could realise from their real attitude what was the line of demarcation It was the same as in the old days, when what divided the Liberal from the Conservative Party was the graduated land . tax. It was still the dividing line, with the small I. a ™ ier t cover up the difference between the two parties. Eh was not going to say that some of the arguments used did not apply, but bad the Reform Party ever spent forty-eight hours over the waoits of the working man? (Laughtei.) During the sixteen years they were on the Ministerial benches did they evei keep members so long while they were fighting the battles of the working man? Personally, he could not remember any long oeriod when members had to put up with inconvenience because the former Government was fighting that cause; but when the present Government was asking that some taxation be placed on the large landowner the Reformers declared: “We will fight till the last ditch and not allow any legislation to go through ” The Government members realised that there might be some hardships, and they • undertook to do their best to meet such cases. The Labour Party supported them whole-heartedly in that, and provision was made to meet cases of hardeh Mr Wright (Wellington Suburbs): What rot! Mr Forbes went on to declare that there was no desire to cause the ordi marv working farmer any difficulty. Th’\ were accused of this, but when they brought the actual farmers affected from behind the smoke screen they foum. that of «o,noo only 25.000 were taxed, and out of that total the extent of taxation was £600,000. That was the contribution of that class towards the whole of the country’s expenses. Hie Bill proposed that those possessing larger holdings, from £14,000 unimproved value upwards, should make a contribution equal to about £290,000, and when one looked at the extent oP the country and wealth represented by it it could not bo suggested that anything undue was being asked from these men.

PROFIT IN LARGE HOLDINGS. This class all held'large holdings, and it was an argument frequently heard that the overhead expenses of this type were less than on small holdings. They had been told that : if the Government cut up these areas the overhead expenses must increase, and they could not be worked at a profit. That showed that the large holdings produced more profit, and this taxation was based on the larger holdings; but it any of those landowners were in a difficulty so that they might not suffer hardship a tribunal was being set up to avert hardship. VIEWS OF FINANCE MINISTER. 11 In entrusting this legislation to me.” continued Mr Forbes, “ the Minister of Fipance gave me this assurance: that 1 was fully justified in doing everything 1 could to show to the House that it was his desire that in the matter of hardship every precaution should be taken. There would be none of these serious cases which could not be covered by the tribunal, and the tribunal set up will carry out the intention of the Government in that respect.” Referring to the request of the Opposition Leader to cut out the word “serious,” Mr Forbes suggested that the case of any man who made am appeal to the Government to be relieved of taxation was serious, and one would not expect frivolous cases to be submitted. Hardship was a comparative term; some men would consider it a hardship to be deprived of luxuries, and it was the genera) experience that those who sang out loudest were the least hurt. It must' be a serious hardship before the concession of complete lifting of this taxation could be agreed to. The Governraemt had to produce the revenue to enable its Budget to bo balanced. LAND VALUE ARGUMENT. Mr Forbes proceeded to deal with the argument of the Leader of the Opposition that the new tax would reduce land values, and that in some cases the equity in land would be destroyed, lie would like to ask the same gentleman this question: “What would be the effect on the land values of this country if the finances of the country -were not kept on a sound basis, and if this country’s credit were not kept on a sound basis and its reputation for sound finance was to go down?” The Prime Minister had made it his first consideration to keep up the country’s reputation in this respect; yet many members, to curry favour with their constituents, were prepared to take away the revenue. If the Government took the narrow view that its proposals would not be popular, if it asked an increase of taxation from .any class, this would bo bound to react

Final Speech on Tax Bill Minister’s Strong Justification Opposition Smoke Screen Dispersed jjao« Oca Pablumbwtart Repoktki.]

on the prosperity of the dominion, but the Government preferred to boldly face the situation. Mr Kyle (Riccarton): And rob the people. Mr Forbes: But when you have a Government which will put up with determined opposition to pass this necessary legislation, I think it must be admitted it is a Government with a full sense of responsibility, and_ full of desire to keen the reputation of this country as liigh as possible. Turning to the question of mort-crao-e exemption, Mr Forbes stated that the actual amount asked was £25,000 from the whole of these men who were brought under it—namely, men with mortgages over £7,500. AN IMPOSSIBLE IDEAL. It was all very well to say that the farmers should not pay taxation. The Government was also told that if the secondary industries were not taxed local industry would be so relieved that people would get their goods at a cheaper rate; and they were also told that, so far ns the Customs taxation was concerned, no burden should be placed on the working man. These were ail strong claims, but a Government which would try to please every section of the community in this respect would raise no taxation at all. Mr Forbes remarked ironically that it would be an ideal state indeed, a Garden of Eden, .if the country could get on without taxation of any description. But that was impossible, and all sections of the commuunity had to be called upon to contribute timir fair share The Government had -sen f°ced with a deficit 911 coming into office, and the first thing it had to do was to make provision for additional revenue. The previous Government had allowed a certain class, well able to pay, to escape. Mr Coates: It took you four months to create the deficit. A Government Member: You know that’s nonsense. Mr Forbes: The whole Budget showed there was a deficit, and our first duty was to meet it. When the position was examined it was found that the men with land of unimproved valuation of £IO,OOO (which meant capital valuation of £15,000) were not contributing one penny as far as land tax was concerned. When we know that the costs of social services ami education are increasing, and that the interest on the Public Debt is increasing, we must find another one and a-half millions; and in face of that wo are told to keep our hands off a certain class. From that class we ask the modest sum of £25,000. Mr Forbes ridiculed the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that concessions on freights on manures were by way of co-operation of the State with industry; that was merely clouding the issue. That co-operation really nieant that assistance was given the primary producers to enable them to carry on Mr Martin (Raglan) interjected that that was scarcely the way to put it. The concessions meant a profit to the country. Mr Forbes: They are to assist the farmer in carrying on, and the concessions on fertiliser freights have to be provided by the general ta-payer. Mr Poison (Stratford): What about Mis assistance given to the secondary industries? Mr Forbes said that was assistance to help them carry on. Mr Rushworth (Bay of Islands). Misrepresentation. Mr Forbes: i am not taking any notice of that member, who has some peculiar theories to indulge in. Those theories would lie _ disastrous. _ Everyone gets these freight concessions, including. some who are well able to pay. The member for Stratford gets them, m-' I get them, so it cannot he said that all who receive them are in the hardship class. As long as Tam Minis, ter of Agriculture 1 will do my best to carry out the policy of giving those concessions. Mr Martin: We hope you will do more. Mr Forbes: I would do more if only 1 could get more money. The Ministex- concluded by complimenting the Labour Party on its action in refraining from obstructing the Bill’s passage; though they had assisted ,to minimise any hardship that might be created. The Bill was read a third time by 43 votes to 25 votes, and passed. THE DIVISION LIST, Ayes (43) .’ Armstrong M'Combs Atmore M‘Donald Barnard M‘Dougall Black M‘Keen Bodkin Macpherson Broadfoot Mnkitanara Carr Martin Chapman Mason Clinkard Munns Cobbe Munro de la ’Porrelle Murdoch Fletcher Parry Forbes Ransom Fraser Savage Hawke Semple Healy Smith Hogan Stallworth' Holland, H. E. Sullivan Howard Taverner Jenkins Veitch Jordan Wilford Lye * Noes (26). Ansell Macmillan Bitchener Massey Coates Nash Dickie Poison Field Rushworth • Hall Samuel Hamilton Stewart Harris Sykes Holland, H. Waite Jones Wilkinson Kyle , Williams Linklater Wright Lysnar YoungThe Land and Income Tax (Annual) ,iIJ was re; cl a second time, and then put through committee, duiing which stage division was taken on the clause relating to the special land tax. The clause was retained by 41 votes to '23, and the. Bill was then read a third time and passed. ■ ■ The House rose at 5.55 p.m, till 3.30. p!m. on Tuesday.