ILLOGICAL AND UNFAIR

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17030, 15 August 1929, Page 10

ILLOGICAL AND UNFAIR

THE BUDGET PROPOSALS REFORMER’S CRITICISM (Per Press Association.) ! WELLINGTON, Inst night. When the Budget debate Was resumed in the House to-day, Mr. A. W. Hhll (R.) said the Minister of Lands I apparently considered it would be a ■ simple matter for laVgc landholders | who might find the proposed additional I taxation too heavy to dispose of pori tions of their land. Mr. Hall sub- | mltted that people Whoso property ! was encumbered by heavy mortgages i might find grave difficulties in the i Way of offering portions of their j estate for sale. If the State Advances -Department was in a position to provide money for these people to pay off outside mortgages and place their properties in such a state that sales of portions could bo freely arranged, the difficulty would not then be so serious.

Replying to the points raised the previous niglffi by Mr. J. S. Fletcher, Mr. Hall said there had been nothing to prevent the Prime Minister from choosing not to complete the negotiations which Mr. Stewart had initiated for raising £fi,ooo,ooo loan in London. Mr. Fletcher had further stated that this amount would have been absorbed by expenditure on public . works, and there would have been nothing left for advances to settlers and other pUrpofes. Mr. Hall replied that the obvious explanation was that Mr. Stewart would have borrowed locally to meet additional requirements, as the present Prime Minister had done. This had been Reform’s policy right through—to borrow locally to relieve commitments on the London market. Mr. Hall, continuing, described the Government’s taxation proposals as illogical, unscientific and unfair, and in conclusion said lie hoped other promises of the Government would receive a greater degree of fulfilment than the promise of cheap money had received.

Mr. F. Lye (United)' subscribed to the view that the primage duty would not be passed on to the consumer. He did not think that it would be possible in the face of keen business coitipetrtion to pass on the matter of 2£d or even 6d in the .£. He read a list of articles on which no duty was paid, and expressed the opinion that even if fitly burden were passed oil to the worker it would be infinitesimal. He wool' not vote for the proposal to increase the primage duty pennapently, but in tin present circumstances he would support this temporary measure.

Mr. Lye said he understood there were 2200 farmers throughout New Zealand who would have to pay land or incopio tax, whichever was the greater. He believed the proposals in regard to super-tax would have the effect of inducing people who had large holdings to submit their land to the Government at a reasonable price, and thereby make land settlement- possible. He expressed the opinion that there was no reason why the bank rate should be so high as it was at present, and he considered bank rate was responsible fox’ the high rjate of interest on mortgages. He thought opportunity might have been token during; the last ■ season, when trading had been 1 so successful, to sell bonds with the object of forming an agricultural bank for the purpose of financing farmers. COMPANIES’ PROFITS. Mr. F. Langstone (Labor) spent some time describing the proposals for the formation of certain commercial undertakings, and said it appeared to him that the huge profits envisaged could 'ohly he obtained by exploiting the public. He suggested that no commercial concerns of the type he had outlined should be permitted, to operato until the Government had satisfied itself that thej interests of the people were riot being prejudiced. He then referred to the profits made by some insurance companies, and remarked that he thought the Government might have looked in this direction in Seeking revenue instead of increasing the primage duty.

While on the subject of insurance companies, he said he considered, accident insurance should be a State monopoly, as it was in Some other countries. In those countries there was no costly litigation when claims were made They were paid as soon as they were proven, but in this country he alleged it Was often necessary to contest a protracted case in the courts before s dainmnt received even a modieum of justice. He described the opposition Of private concerns to the Government’? participation in ibuSinesk as being due to their belief that by doing so the Government was safeguarding the interests of the general public, Which did not altogether coincide with the interests of these commercial concerns. THE AGRICULTURAL BIAS. Mr. D. Jones (R.), stated that when the Reform administration relinquished office the country was on the high road to prosperity, and had >t continued in office there would, in his Opinion, have been no deficit. Mr. Jones, referring to the taxation proposals, said too much of the burden would fall on the farmer and the farm worker. He had a shrewd susfiieiou that the idea of giving education an agricultural bias had Originated with the Minister of Finance, who wished to have farmers in the right mood. When the Budget had been prepared the Minister of Finance had said to the Minister of Education, “That’s quite chough; just refer it. to a Select Compnittee, and it will be forgotten.” The Budget had contained the agrichltural bias, Mr. Jones continued, but it had been a bias against the farmer. He considered it Would be very difficult for the farming community to recover from the blow if the Government’s taxation proposals Were to go through. The Government had complained of the diffi culty in obtaining land at a fair price. Me personally knew of instances where land could Ibe obtained for fair prices, ahd in fact 10,000 acres bad recently been offered to him at a price below the . Government valuation. He also suggested that the that had been quoted, representing the number of farmers who had mortgages and who were affect-j erl by super-tax hail l>een underestimated.'' The adoption of the Government's proposals would destroy land vhlues, and he knew of no more dangerous act to New. Zealand than to destroy land values. He claimed that, the rich commercial interests had been left free, while practically the whole burden of increased taxation bad been placed on the farmer. The debate was adiotlrncd on the motion of Mr. O. C. Mitnns, and the House rose at 10.25 until 2.30 to-morrow,