PARLIAMENT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 31 August 1929, Page 7

PARLIAMENT.

FiNANGJLAE REBATE. VARIETY OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSER.

\ (By Telegraph—Press Association ) WELLINGTON, Aug. 29. J The financial debate was continued by Mr. C. A. W ilkinson (Egmont), who criticised the proposed increase in the primage duty. He said it did not seem to linn to be sound business to rely on Customs taxation for additional revenue, as in times of stress there was a tendency lor Customs returns to shrink, lie believed it would impose an unfair burden on workers and farmers. lhe delect in the taxation system of New Zealand was that it uas not (based on the principle ol ability to pay. Somebody would have I to pay the increased primage duty and I lie was satisfied that the cost would be | spread over the community m some I way or other. It was the business 01 a merchant to pass his costs on. Mr. Wilkinson expressed dissatisfaction with the proposal to reduce the amount of mortgage exemption which,, he considered, could result in nothing j but harm. He urgently requested the Prime Minister to reconsider this proposal. It would not be fair to tax the man who is heavily in debt. Both general government and local government imposed taxes on the farmer, and some men carrying mortgages would find themselves in a serious position. He suggested that, the taxation of farmers siiould be based on their incomes and not regardless of whether they weie making a prolit or not. Too much of the country’s reenue was raised by Customs taxation. More should be derived from the wealthy people, especially wealthy laud

owners. Mr. Wilkinson expressed doubt as to the advisability of the completion of the South Island main trunk railway and advocated careful investigation into all extensive expenditure on the railways. Mr J. N. Massey referred to the methods that had been adopted in the Commonwealth to meet the position created by the deficit. He believed similar proposals in New Zealand would have been more acceptable to the country generally than those put forward in the Budget. Increased tax on luxuries without raising the cost of living should have been the objective of the Government. It was generally agreed j that any increase in the cost of living I W!1j« llAt, in infprpcf.c +lin

j He advocated trade within the Empire ' with British preference, and stated that he was glad to see that Australia was following out that principle. Mr. Massey added that the Reform Party at the last election had in mind a scheme for helping workers by providing allotments for them where they could keep a cow or two and pig. .So far he had not seen any evidence that the United thirty intended to adopt such a scheme. A United member: Oh yes they are. Mr. Massey advocated camps on undeveloped areas where boys could he taught farming. He did not wish to deal fully with the land taxation proposals at the present time, as he would reserve most of his comment until a later occasion. However, he desired to assure the House that it was most ' unfortunate that these proposals should have been submitted at a. time when not only the farmers but the lendinginstitutions and private mortgagees generally were just beginning to regain ' confidence in investment in broad acres. Those considering taking up land would refrain, and with investors nervous it required only the present proposals to make them avoid anv commitments.

Mr. A. J. Murdoch recommended the construction of concrete roads in preference to bitumen roads. He sail.' that whereas bitumen was largely imported, the use of concrete would bring into employment more New Zealand labour and material. They had their own cement works and one company had recently made a reasonable offer to the Highways Board, which had been requested to put down a trial concrete road. He hoped the Highways Board and the Transport Board would reconsider the claims of concrete roads as a more economic proposition than bitumen roads. Mr. Murdoch expressed the view that expense could be saved if one hoard were to undertake the work of the Meat Hoard and the Dairy Board. There would be a considerable saving in levies on suppliers and the same results could be obtained. More money would then be available for research, and it was to research that he antici-. (rated they would owe most of the I prosperity of the future. ; Mr. Murdoch defended the increase | in the primage duty, which, lie said, had been imposed for a limited period. | It, was hoped it would in time be pos- j sible not only to remove this temporary increase, but also to remove the original one per cent, which the Reform Party had allowed to remain in operation for so many yeans. Ho suggested that many New Zealand people had been unaware that the original one per cent. primage duty had been in existence, and he anticipated that when they realised that in the past 14 years they had paid a total of over £.5,01)0,000 in this way there would be evidence of the boomerang effect of the Reform Party’s attack on the present proposal. Mr. H. M. Campbell expressed his support of the views outlined by Mr. Murdoch in reference to concrete roads. He voiced his opposition to the completion of the South Island Main Trunk railway, stating the expenditure it would entail was unwarranted in the present time of stress. He described the withholding of the grant to the Highways Board as a distinct breach of faith. Referring to land taxation, Mr. Campbell isaid that in the city a lawyer, doctor, or business man was applauded when he made a success in his walk of ( life, but serious obstacles were to be ( placed in the way of the man who was | endeavouring; to make more than a mere independence on the land. The', result was that the best brains of the' country would leave the land and seek some more attractive occupation.

There was no inducement ror ambition to be applied to farming operationsT Another serious aspect of the taxation proposals was that the increased burden on the farmer would necessitate his disposal of a number of employees, and Mr. Campbell predicted' that the unemployment , figures would be doubled. He hoped the .Prime Minister, “before driving people into bankruptcy,” would reconsider his plans. The Hon. H. Atmore replied to Mr. H. G. Dickie’s statement that the United Government would have been less able to tope with the returned sold ions’ settlement scheme than the Reform administration. He referred to the predictions of Sir Joseph M at'd at the time the Reform Party’s scheme had been outlined and stated that those views clearly showed that the present Prime Minister had foreseen the costliness and failures of settlers that had characterised the scheme. The Reform Party, in the face ol warnings from Sir Joseph Ward, had

continued a policy of large purchases at rising prices, and then the fall in prices had come. He instanced two properties in the Nelson district which had !>een purchased at a cost of over £7O,(XX) to the country, and which were now valued in the books of the department at approximately £19,000. The loss in this quarter amounted to £58,000. Furthermore, he submitted these purchases and similar purchases throughout New Zealand had been made in spite of the advice of the land purchase officers.

Mr. Atmore did not think the public would he deceived by statements that unemployment would increase if the taxation proposals were put into operation. He was sure the view that an increase in land settlement and the consequent decrease in unemployment would he accepted as a more reasonable view.

i At the conclusion of Mr. Atmore’s speech Mr. Coates claimed to have been misrepresented and proceeded to refer to several matters mentioned by Mr. Atmore, but the Speaker ruled him out of order in some respects, and Mr Coates said lie would defer bis remarks till lie was speaking on a subsequen t occasion. Mr. A. M. Samuel said he had been rujlrpriised that mo reference to the educaiton policy had been contained in Mr. Atmore’s speech, which bad been devoted almost entirely to criticism of the Reform administration. It bad resembled an Opposition attack on a Government more than a Ministerial reply to the Opposition. He could only conclude that the Minister bad no policy.

Mr. Samuel referred to what lie termed “an amusing sidelight on politics.” He said Mr. E. J. Howard had described the present debate as a sham fight between the Reform and United parties, and that in the past members of these two parties had always gone into the same lobby on fundamental issues. Then had come the bombshell. The no-confidence amendment was moved, and what was the outcome? The Reform members were in one lobby and the Labour and United members went together to the other. (Laughter.) Mr. Howard had also stated that Labour members would support the Government on proposals for progressive legislation. How would they classify the increase in the primage duty? Would they support the Government on that issue ? The House rose at 10.30 p.m.