LAND TAXATION PROPOSALS

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 September 1929, Page 7

LAND TAXATION PROPOSALS

MR. COATES’S PROTEST AMENDMENT DEFEATED (Special to “Star.”) WELLINGTON, September 27. The prolonged debate of the second reading of the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill was concluded at today’s sitting, after* the Opposition had unsuccessfully endeavoured to have it referred to a committee. Mr Coates declared that the magnitude and importance of the taxation proposals and also their far-reaching effect, called for much greater examination than merely a few speeches from Government members. In no case had the arguments of the Opposition been refuted or closely examined by the Government. He pointed out that in 1907 Sir J. Ward had a similar measure referred to the Finance Committee, which had altered it almost out of recognition, and when it came back to the House further alterations had been made. Mr Coates described the hardship clause as a dummy and said he was afraid that both the Government and Labour’ were going to shelter behind it. The Bill must have a serious effect on farming costs, of which it took no account. Never had there been a time when they should move more cautiously, for the indication was that wool and possibly meat prices might fall to a much lower level than at present. There was an impression that the farmer had been getting away with something he was not entitled to, and that the landowner was a curse to the community. To prove that, investigation was required. If it was deemed necessary to make the landed community pay a tax, their ability to pay should be considered. The farmer was entitled to the same consideration as anybody else. He congratulated Mr Polson on the attitude he had taken.

Mr Coates was proceeding to deal with the hardship clause when Sir J. Ward interjected: “If you don’t like the hardship clause 1 will drop it, if you want to.” After a little more discussion, Mr Coates moved that further consideration of the Bill be deferred until the effects of the provisions of the Bill had been fully investigated and reported on, after evidence had been taken before the Public Accounts Committee. He gave as reasons, (1) that the true basis of the tax. should be on the ability to pay, which could only be ascertained through the income tax, whereas tlie Bill was so designed that in a large number of cases that principle would be'ignored ; (2) that insofar as a progressive land tax was required to promote subdivision that principle should be applied only to such properties as were classified as suitable for subdivision and after reasonable notice had been given ; (3) that the Bill would seriously affect the security of land values and render farmers’ finance more difficult; (4) that a grave injustice was inflicted by the Bill,.especially in those cases in which the tax would appropriate the whole annual value of the property, apart altogether from local taxation.

The debate proceeded, some members finding difficulty in keeping within the confines of the amendment. After over two hours’ discussion, in which only Reformers, with one exception, participated, the amendment was defeated by 45 to 27, Reform voting solid, assisted by Mr 'Polson. Messrs Rushworth, Wilkinson and Hogan voted with the Government and Labour.

Replying to discussion, Sir Joseph Ward said an effort had been made through the Farmers’ Union to create the impression that the Bill contained proposals hostile to farmers. That was 1 not so. There were 80,000 farmers in the Dominion, and of those 55,000 paid taxes of different kinds. Only 2400 farmers were touched by the Bill. Sir J. Ward said that the Reform Party had lifted the taxation off farmers imposed during the term of the National Government, which he himself would not have removed. He said that the farmers’ protest meetings throughout the country had been organised to create a feeling against the proposals of the Bill. The intention of the legislation was to give people a chance to get on the land, but the large land owners could afford that opportunity by cutting up their estates now. The Bill was read a second time on the voices. FARMERS’ PROTEST. . WELLINGTON, September 27. A specially-convened conference representing the Dominion Executive of tlie Farmers’ Union and the Sheep Owners’ Federation was held to-day. It reaffirmed the resolutions of the previous conference protesting against land taxation, and appointed Messrs Duxfield, Jessep and A. R. Turnbull to present its views to Sir Joseph Ward. '