AUCKLAND MEMBERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20844, 10 April 1931, Page 11

AUCKLAND MEMBERS.

OPINIONS ON THE BILL. CRITICISM OF TAXATION. OTHER MEANS OF REVENUE. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] • WELLINGTON, Thursday. The debate on the second reading of the Hawke's Bay Earthquake Bill was continued in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr. A. Harris (Reform —Waitemata) made a plea for the recognition of the work of Mr. F. R. Field, who had made a study of earthquakes. It was stated he had predicted the last earthquake. Mr. . W. J. Jordan (Labour— Manukau) thought it would be wise for the Government to look again into the possibility of deriving more rovenuo from petrol. Mr. Jordan stated that considering the comparatively small volume of spirit used in this country and the profit amounting to millions which was being made by the companies, there was surely a greater field in this quarter for taxation than there was in relation to the people's homes and chattels. He supported the view that the bill should bo referred to a Select Committee. Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Independent—Grey Lynn) said the bill could be regarded as a friendly gesture on the part" of the Government and it was for the House to convert it into a measure that would interpret that gesture in a suitablo manner. He did not favour the tax on insurable property. Mr. C. E. Macmillan (Reform —Tauranga) said the insurance tax was sonicthing in the nature of an earthquake insurance levy, and should be made only on those properties which could claim from the fund in the event of a disaster. Dairy produce was already insured against earthquake, and it seemed unfair to penalise this produce with a levy, which meant that farmers would have to pay twice. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Labour— Auckland Suburbs) said the money-lending class, which was the most obvious class to go to for taxation, would escape almost scot-free under the insurable property tax proposal. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour —Auckland Central) complained that members were not adequately supplied with information. They did not know, for instance, what had been the insurable cover on the properties destroyed. The- Hon. A. J. Stalhvorthy, Minister of Health: Under three millions. Mr. Parry said this information should have been freely given to the Houso. The amendment moved by Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour— Napier) was then put and defeated on the voices. COMMERCIAL MEN OBJECT. SCHEME INEQUITABLE. Criticism of the taxation proposals in the Hawke's Bhy Earthquake Bill, now before Parliament, was expressed at a meeting of the council of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce yesterday. Members generally were of opinion that the insurance taxation proposals were inequitable. The executive of the chamber had already urged the deletion of the taxation section of the bill pending its consideration by a special committee, which would consider also whether it was necessary to reimburse London funds forthwith, and if so, to advise a more equitable method of taxation. "I wonder whether it is realised that under this bill practically the whole of the produce exported from the Dominion will be subject to 18d insurance premium ?" asked Mr. Bowie. He said frozen meat, wool and butter were all covered by marine policies, which in turn protected the fire risk on produce while in store. On the basis of last year's exports the bill meant that produce was going to pay £33,000. ~ The nresident, Mr. A. M. Seaman, said that as it stood the tax was clearly very inequitable. Taxation was necessary, but surely a better method could have been devised. The council approved of the action 01 the executive. s CHRISTCHURCH CRITICISM. « INEQUITABLE TAXATION." [BY TELEGRAPH 1 ; —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] CHRISTCHURCH, Thursday. Criticism of the proposed property tax under the Earthquake Bill was by the Chamber of Commerce this evening. The chamber opposes the tax on the ground that it is a levy on property and not on income. It is inequitable as between one section of the community and another, as it taxes owners of property, machinery, merchandise, produce and other goods, and does not tax investments and other forms of capital. The chamber suggests that a contribution should be made from public revenue instead of by the proposed " costly, inconvenient and inequitable taxation.''