LABOUR’S DILEMMA

Hawera Star, Volume L, 31 July 1930, Page 5

LABOUR’S DILEMMA

OPPOSED TO BOTH PARTIES UNITED LESSER EVIL CRITICISM OF BUDGET. (By TeiegrapU—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 30. There were some phases of the Financial Statement with which his party was in agreement and others with' which it disagreed; those svith which it agreed it would support when

the time came, while it, would move against those with which it disagreed, said Mr 11. E. Holland, leader of the Labour Party, continuing the debate on the Budget in the House of Representatives to-day. Referring to the Opposition amendment, Mr Holland said that while there’ were some points in it with which the Labour Party was in favour, it could not consider supporting an amendment which would put the Reform Party back on the Treasury benches. While his party would not support a no-confidence motion it did not follow that it was voting its confidence in the Government; it was merely declining to go from ‘bad to worse. It was not going to exchange a cheque marked n.s.f. for a oounterfeit note. Dealing with the Budget, Mr Holland said the Labour Party was m favour of increased income tax, and he added that he himself would have gone further in that direction. He expressed approval .of the proposal to amend the taxation on landholders and declared it would not affect- the small farmer at all. The landholder who would he called on to pay the tax on his farming income would be well able to bear it. He would have favoured the retention of the super tax on land of an unimproved value exceeding £20,000. Income taxation was undoubtedly the most equitable form of raising revenue, and in this respect the _ New Zealand system was not as scientific as it might be, because the higher incomes escaped a steeply graded tax which ought to reach them. Mi' Holland suggested that a carefully prepared and more steeply graded income tax should be applied, not only to produce the same amount but, in fact, a greater amount of revenue than was provided by income, taxation at present. It would then be possible to stop the present tendency to ask the rank and file, to bear "an inequitable burden.

COMPANY TAXATION. It might he argued that many of the large incomes were those of com- . panies, and he agreed that company taxation was unscientific. The country had to be prepared, however, for the time when individual taxation would be substituted for company taxation, and it might then he found that some of the present opponents of company taxation would be the strongest opponents of its substitution. Mr Holland approved of the increase of the tax on bank notes from 3 to 4-J----per cent, declaring this was by no means too much to ask the banks to pay for the country’s credit. He also commended the increase in the death duties in the higher ranges, but opposed the proposal to impose an amusement tax on cheaper tickets. The effect of the change was to increase the cost of amusements to the poorer people and to children, while four and five .shillings tickets would not be subjected to anv extra tax. If it were necessary to ' obtain more money from amusements the tax on more expensive seats should be increased. Referring to the Customs increases;, Mr Holland said goods which were necessary and could not be .produced m New Zealand should be admitted free of duty. Empire preference should be granted in the case of goods which could be produced in Britain. He said the increased duty oil tobacco and cigarettes was heavy. He regretted the report of the select committee on' tobacco growing and manufacturing would not be available before the Omstoms Amendment Bill was introduced. As matters stood at present it seemed the local industry was going to suffer as a result of the increased excise duty on locally-grown tobacco, while there was to be no increase in the duty on imported manufactured tobacco. Nobody could read the Budget without feeling concerned about the railWciY'.s facilities, for" motor - transport bad. been increased without any serious effort to cone with the problem of running motor and railway transport systems in co-ordination. He_ asked how a saving in railway expenditure was ..to be effected and said lie hoped: it was not to be achieved by the dismissal of workers. Referring to the Royal Commission on railways' he contended tlieGovernment should have taken • men from the rank and file of the railway services, who would have been able as members of the commission to giveexnert advice. The Labour Party would vote the United Government out of office on the first opportunity, but not at the expense of returning the Reform 1 arty to office, concluded Mr Holland.