MORE INCONSISTENCY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8560, 24 October 1913, Page 6

MORE INCONSISTENCY

In advocating in the Legislative Council yesterday part 6 of the Land ■Bill, which deals with private lands required for settlement, the Hon. H. D. Bell argued that the alternative ■plan approved by the Liberals—to increase the graduated land tax—would operate unfairly. The Minister said 'that opponents of the Government wished to so increase the graduated tax as to make it impossible for a landowner to hold land “ above a certain value.” This is a very loose way iof putting the case. The object of the graduated tax is to make it unprofitable for anybody to hold wide areas of land in a non-productive or grossly under-production state —to force him either to put the land to its legitimate use or sell to those who will. As many people hare much greater territories than they can profitably work, while the bulk of the people have none, an effective tax would, of course, compel a large measure of sub-division—and promote a corresponding degree of closer settlement. This is what the Tory Government objects to, naturally enough, when the personnel and character of the party are considered. Mr Bell told the Council that it was “ obviously unfair and unjust to say that the landowner should ho hampered by having to sub-divide and rood his land.” The Liberals would “ destroy the whole market ”; they would “compel the landowners to bring in land to the market —all in one year.” All wo can say as to this last point is that it would require a very much stiffer tax than anybody has yet conceived to bring the squatters into the markets with their millions of acres, worth scores of millions of pounds, “all in one year”—particularly when, as the Hon. James Allen shows in his Budget, they are enjoying an annual increment m value of more than £6,000,000, or two hundred times as much as the yearly increase in the land tax. But if, as Mr Bell says, it is unfair and unjust that the squatter should be “hampered ” by having to sub-divide his land, what are we to think of the protestations of Mr Allen to the contrary ? In his Financial Statement of last year, the Minister for Finance said: There can be little doubt that the higher rate of taxation on the owners of farm holdings has operated to induce them to break up then- properties. The Government . . • is determined to bring abont a closer settlement of the land, and mak« this the most important plank in its policy. To carry this out the graduated land tax will be amended, etc. Yet now we have the Government member who presides over the Legislative Council saying that it is “obviously unfair and unjust” to “hamper a squatter in the very way Mr Allen affected to approve and undertook to carry out as “ the most important plank” in the Government’s policy—namely, to compel him, by increased taxation; to sub-divide! Really, it seems desirable that Ministers should keep more in touch with one another. It is time they had a heart-to-heart talk in the quiet seclusion of the Cab:jaet room.