MR. BELL’S RECORD.

Northland Age, Volume 25, Issue 27, 22 October 1925, Page 7

MR. BELL’S RECORD.

At his meeting at Kaitaia or the 12th inst. Mr. Allen Bell M.P., took considerable credit or having voted with the Government against necessary and humane legislation and for the favouring of the wealthy. Mr. Bell’s record is one upon which he has no reason to be congratulated, he having proved himself to be merely a political marionette without courage to stand up for what is right and fair to ail the people of the Dominion. How can lie explain his opposition to the following measures ? When paragraph one. of the Land and Income Tax Bill —providing for wholly exempting the income of landowners from taxation—was under discussion in 1923 a motion to confine the exemption to small farmers “with a total assessable income not exceeding £750” was voted against by Mr. Bell. A further amendment to confine exemption to iandowners whose incomes do not exceed £IOOO was voted against by Mr. Bell, as also was a further amendment to confine the exemption to landowners whose

incomes do not exceed £ISOO. (Hansard, vol. 22, p. 204-5). Mr. Bell voted to exempt the big squatters of the Dominion. Is such a Government a small farmers’ Government ? This exemption clause afforded no relief to the average working farmer, while its main effects could only be to make gifts running into three and four figures to the wealthy landowners.

When the Land and Income 1 ax (Annual) Bill was before the House in 1923 provision was made for the abolition of the 10 per cent, super-tax on land and a 20 per cent, reduction in income taxation, and although it was clearly shown that the effect of these reductions woul d be to confer gifts tin the form of reduced taxes) running into four and five figures in the case of the big financial institutions and the profiteering companies, and also that in a multitude of cases the Bill would give no relief to the small working farmer and the worker with a small income, Mr. Bell voted to help the big institutions and profiteering companies. (Hansard, vol. 202, p. 194). As a result of these reductions in the taxation of the wealthy (£2,221,-

456 since 1923) the Government found it necessary since 1923 to increase taxation on the worker on farm* and elsewhere by way of Customs taxation amounting to £2,315,926. Thus Mr. Bell voted to take this taxation off the shoulders of those best able to bear it. On an amendment to the same Bill t© confine the land tax relief to landowners whose taxable balances do not exceed £5,000 Mr. Bel! voted against the amendment. He was determined to help the poor squatter. (Hansard, vol. 202, p. 277). It was clearly pointed out that this would remove the super-tax from the ivorking farmers.

When Clause 3 of the War Pensions Amendment Bill was in committee of the House in 1923, and when Mr. Lee moved to m.ike the payment of the economic pension to a totally or partially disabled soldier mandatory Mr. Allen Bell voted against this humane provision. Yet during the same session he voted to give the C.S.R. trust protection to the extent of £IBO,OOO a year. When an attempt was made to have Clause 4 of the War Pensions Amendment Bill referred back to the Government for the purpose of having the economic* pension to the wife and children of a disabled soldier made mandatory Mr. Bell voted against it. (Hansard, vol. 201, p. 619). When the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Amendment Bill was in committee 1a 1923, an amendment to provide that one of the mem! -ts of each District Valuation Committee should beelecced by the soldier-s ttlersof the land district concerned was vo:od against by Mr. Allen Bell. (Hansard, vol. 201, p. 709). In Committee of Supply in tho House in 1923 a motion that the Pensions Department vote be reduced by £5 to indicate that pensions should be provided for the blind was voted against by Mr.

, Bell. (Hansard, vol. 202, p. 243), Thus while Mr. Bell was prepared 1 reduce taxation on wealthy 4 institutions and squatters he was 1 not prepared to provide pensions . f° r the blind to help them endure the long night. > When, in 1923, an amendment was moved “to provide pensions [ which will secure te the invalided and the blind the prevailing stan- ■ dard of living, raise the Old Age ; Pension to at least £l/5/. per week, and increase the widows’ and miners’pensions to at least the amount of the epidemic pensions,” how did Mr. Bell vote ? He voted with the Government to hjock this amendment. (Hansard, vol. 200, p. 418-19). When the amending Customs Tariff Bill providing for the imposition of a duty of 5-i6th of a penny on sugar for the protection of the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. - a concern which reckons its profits in millions —was brought down Mr. Bell voted for the Trust as against the interest of the people. (Hansard, vol. 200, p. 1176-7). Mr. Bell’s vote meant ,

giving this wealthy company protection te the extent of £lßo,ooo a year. Yet Mr. Bell voted against adequate pens ons for the sick, blind and old ! (Hansard, vol. 200, p. 418-9). In (923 a further measure in favour of the widows’ pension being raised to the standard of the epidemic pension, and the old-age pension being increased : to an amount sufficient to guarantee the pievailing standard of 1 living was voted against by Mr. i Bell. (Hansard, vol. 202, p. 243). 1 A measure in favour of the i miners’ phthisis pension being i increased was voted against by t Mr. Bell. (Hansard, vol. 202, p. i 243-4)- r

On the motion to confine- the Government’s 20 per cent, income tax reductions to cases where the taxable income does not exceed £SOO Mr. Bell voted to allow the 1 eduction os larger incomes. (Hansard, vol. 202, p. 278). In Committee of Supply in 1923 an amendment that the Education vote be reduced by £4 to indicate that the Government should provide a larger sum of money for expenditure on school blindings was voted against by Mr. Bell. (Hansard, vol. 202, p 5.31).

, A further amendment that the Education vote be reduced by £3 to indicate that before the income tax reductions became operative, teachers’ salaries should be restored to their pre-war purchasing standard was not voted for by Mr. Bell. (Hansard, vol. 202, P- 532).

A still further amendment to reduce the Education vote by £2 to indicate that the amount allowed for capitation and incidental expenses of school committees should be increased was voted against by Mr. Bell. ( Hansard, vol. 202, p. 532), An amendment to reduce the

salary of the General Manager of Railways by £lO to indicate that full political rights should be conceded to railway employees was voted against by Mr. Bell, (Hansard, vol, 202, p. C2t). When the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill was in committee how did Mr. Bell vote on the. amendment, the purpose of. which was to conserve the British-born women their rights of citizenship, irrespective of the marriages they contract ? Did he vote to allow British-born women an . unqualified right to retain 'heir British nationality, or did he vote to penalise t’m-se women ? (See Hansard, vol. 202, p. 633). From the above it is fair to assume that had the Reform Government moved to take all taxation off the wealthy and place it on the back of the small farmer and worker Mr. Bell would I have voted for the Government. ! Isn’t it up to electors to end the j farce of such misr*. nreifimatfon ? M Bell may rightly be sub jected to the strop; r hi . lor his spineless a .ion on , - matters aimed . Z3curing benefits to a majority of people and I not a favoured few. COMMUNISM. vv hat Mr. Allen Bell and the Reform Government seem to overlook when belabouring Socialism and Communism is that the most effective weapon against

■ the growth ol revolutionary schemes lies in the promotion of contentment and prosperity among the bulk of the people. Where a people are happy and contented, in as far as is humanly possible, the Communist can make little headway. But where legitimate grievances are neglected by politicians and governments and the wealthy classes are unduly favoured, materia! is cretited for the Communist to work 1 ake a very simple instance in the income tax legislation of 1923. Is it any wonder a section oi the community is

1 wiLing to listen to the remedies • proposed by extreme agitators if we tak" our own case in the north, there is a serious indi tnient against the Government. 1 his territory has been ignored and neglected. Had necessary railway and roading facil ties been provided to give the people j in the country a fairer deni, the i north, by this time would be carrying thousands more people, contented and prosperous. Each and every one of those people would have been an additional bulwark against the spread of revolutionary ideas. Instead of providing proper facilities f y closer s ttlement the Government is forcing discont nted people into the cities to provide a fe- tile field for the agitator. It is a matter of e ..mmon knowledge that revolutionary doctrine and fatal extrem sm is born and f stered in cities, and makes little headway in country areas. Histoiy has proved this time and again, lhe growth of Commun- 1 ism in this country is due to the j incapacity and shortcomings of politicians such as Mr. Bell, who vole for the wealthy and load the poor man clown with taxation.