THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, APRIL 7, 1924. TAXATION COMMISSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18678, 7 April 1924, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, APRIL 7, 1924. TAXATION COMMISSION.

If the avoidance of controversy were the Government's motive in deciding to appoint a commission to consider taxation proposals, that purpose has already been defeated. Little sympathy need be forthcoming on that count, for the idea of a commission was not happy in conception. All questions affecting taxation should be decided directly by the representatives of the people in Parliament- There is no objection to steps being taken to obtain information and advice, but to fly to such a refuge as that now adopted is not indicative of strength or confidence. Royal Commissions are occasionally very useful tribunals, but the habit of appointing them can easily grow too strong. Taxation is a department concerning which the Government of the day should formulate and apply its own policy. Once it begins to fall back on outsiders for assistance, the possibilities uncovered are endless. Every section of the community has it» own.{ viewpoint. • Thousands oi individuals have their pet theories or cherished panaceas. This accumulation of chaff no doubt contains a certain amount of good grain, but tie winnowing process is apt to be long and complicated, with no certainty of obtaining a residuum worth the effort. . A commission, to return to that subject, cannot guarantee judicial findings, no matter who may preside. A Judge of the Supreme Court in the position cannot ensure them. It is highly questionable whether the duty of presiding is one which should properly be imposed upon him- It brings him into the very midst of matters highly contentious in their nature. *

So far from stilling controversy, the commission announced by Mr. Massey , has already precipitated a considerable volume. * Its personnel, even while only vaguely known, has caused dissatisfaction. In the arguments already begun, the Prime [Minister has not had all the best of it. It is understandable that he should desire the membership to be small. The president of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce has suggested a committee, to consist of the Minister for Finance and 18 other members representative of various interests. Very soundly he suggests that no resolutions' should be proposed or accepted, 'because the chance of having any adopted by so heterogeneous a gathering would be negligible. He adds that the Minister would hear all the suggestions, take' cognisance of them, and derive much benefit from the experience. He might hear them; to take full cognisance of them all would probably test the powers of the greatest financial genius who ever breathed; as to deriving benefit, if he survived the experience at all/ he would probably survive it as a nervous wreck. The committee of inquiry which sat in 1922, „if it proved nothing else, proved the difficulty of obtaining anything like a unanimous finding when the membership of such a body is in any degree. numerous, and the interests represented are wide. On one or two basic principles the ; committee agreed. When .it came to details, minority counter-proposals accompanied most of the significant recommendations. That committee numbered fourteen, representing commerce and industry, farmers and sheepowners, accountants and law societies- It worked thoroughly and conscientiously, yet from its labours little has resulted. It illustrates the uselessness of attempting to delegate responsibilities which from their Very nature should not be delegated."

Though its smaller size may be accounted a virtue in the commission proposed by the Prime Minister, that circumstance does not vindicate Mr. Massey's scheme. If, in addition to the chairman an-

nounced, -it was declared that the members were to be technical experts, there would be little room for argument save as to the ultimate utility of the inquiry. When, however, it is found that four business men are to be appointed, pertinence has to be allowed the suggestion that the producers and the labour organisations have a right to be represented. However predetermined the present members may be to preserve a judicial mind, their own special outlook must obtrude, and the influence of the chairman will not obviate the tendency. Adding to the interests represented would merely multiply the viewpoints without introducing any flux to fuse the differences. Therefore, argument about the composition of the commission is beside the point. Questions of taxation should be decided by Parliament, and the policy should be suggested by the Government. A return to that conclusion is inevitable from whatever angle the question be viewed. Concerning the immediate need, there is little cause to' hesitate- A reduction of the still-excessive rates of direct taxation, a lightening of the cumulative burden under which the country labours, is what must Be achieved to remove the brake from the wheel of progress. With that accomplished, the subsidiary problems will not press so hard. They may be settled more at leisure. Meantime, appointing a commission threatens to obscure that point, as well as to arouse an atmosphere of controversy not calculated to reassure the public mind concerning the central issue.