ARGUMENT OVER TAXATION

Southland Times, Issue 23333, 18 October 1937, Page 8

ARGUMENT OVER TAXATION

Labour’s Proposals Debated DELAY IN PASSING OF BILL MEMBERS ANXIOUS TO USE RADIO FACILITIES (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, October 17. There has been a veritable flood of talk in the House of Representatives during the week just past. To all intents and purposes, discussion has been confined to two subjects, the taxation proposals of the Government, as disclosed in the annual taxing Bill, and the general financial policy embodied in the Budget. Chief interest centred in the political battle which waged for three days over the passing of the taxing Bill and the financial debate, which had previously shown signs of becoming wearisome, lapsed into comparative oblivion.

From the outset it was obvious that nothing could stop the passage of the taxation Bill, which provided for the maintenance of the rates of land and income levied last year. The Government was committed to the measure, as the £8,500,000 of estimated revenue from these sources of taxation formed an integral part of the budgeting for the current financial year, prepared by the Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash). However, the fact remained that there was a marked increase in the estimated yield from and the Opposition was naturally provided with ample scope for debate. In normal circumstances, the Bill would probably have been passed in a single sitting—although the chances are that it would have been an all-night sitting—but the factor of broadcasting was present and an interesting tactical situation developed in consequence. Urgency was taken for the passing of the taxing Bill when it came before the House on Tuesday afternoon, the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) explaining that it was necessary to have the measure passed as soon as possible in order th»t the Land and Income Tax Department might proceed with the sending out of assessments. But the second reading debate was to be broadcast in its entirety and this probably gave an added impetus to the desire of the Opposition to contest the passage of the Bill. Heavy taxation is something which is notoriously open to criticism, and it is also something which is extremely difficult to defend. However meritorious are the avenues of expenditure to be explored, the man who foots the bill through taxation does not relish the payment of his annual levy. This, in part, was the basis for the argument put forward by the Opposition. There were definite items of expenditure which were attackekd as far as the rules of debate permitted, but in general the Opposition concentrated on the necessity for relieving industry as well as the man on the moderate income from the increased burden of taxation. MONOPOLY OF BROADCAST For something over six hours the Opposition maintained a persistent attack on the Government’s policy of high taxation and, during that time, only two Government members, both of them members of the Cabinet, rose to defend the proposals contained in the Bill. The opponents of the Government enjoyed a virtual monopoly of the broadcast and they did not cease their attack on the Bill until Parliament went “off the air” at 11 o’clock. In spite of the fact that urgency had been taken for the passing of the measure, the Government was then forced to ask for the adjournment of the debate in order that Mr Nash might give a broadcast reply and, from a tactical point of view, the first round definitely went to the Opposition. The resumption of the debate on Wednesday evening saw the Government take up the gauge thrown down by the Opposition. Arguments against high taxation were answered from the Treasury benches and finally the Minister was permitted to make use of the radio for his reply to the debate. The speech given by Mr Nash showed him at the peak of his mental agility. He opened by administering a verbal trouncing as severe as anything heard during the session to the Hon. Sir Alfred Ransom (Nat., Pahiatua). A few minutes beforehand, Sir Alfred had condemned the imposition of the graduated land tax, but Mr Nash, with barbed quotations from Hansard, showed how Sir Alfred had supported the restoration of the same tax in 1929.

The second part of the Minister’s speech, dealing with comparative rates of taxation in various parts of the British Empire, was not quite so convincing. In reply to the Opposition’s contention that New Zealand was the highest taxed country in the Empire, he did not quote per capita rates, but confined himself mainly to a comparison of the taxation paid in various income classes. However, Mr Nash had his agrument well prepared and expounded it with all his accustomed fluency. Even with the passing of the second reading, the Opposition did not give up the fight. The committee stages on I Thursday night gave rise to another pitched battle, but here again the Government had evidently decided that the occasion was not one where silence was golden. Labour speakers were on their feet just as frequently as members of the Opposition and it was after midnight before the short title was passed. Three amendments were moved by Opposition members during the committee stages, all of them designed to give some relief from taxation to the man on the lower income levels. The amendments, of course, were doomed to failure, but some interest attached to them owing to the fact that Mr W. J. Lyon (Lab., Waitemata) had stated during the second reading debate that an attempt to lighten the load on the poorer taxpayer mieht meet with support from the most unexpected quarters. In spite of this Government members, including Mr Lyon, remained solidly behind the Bill and the divisions, on party lines, were carried by the Government with commanding majorities. The Bill, for which urgency was obtained on Tuesday afternoon, was passed finally in the small hours of Friday morning—eloquent testimony to the stimulus provided by broadcasting to the loquacity of members. The delay in the passing of the Bill cannot possibly prove serious. The measure has still to be passed by the Legislative Council, and the Rt. Hon. J, G, Coates (Nat., Kaipara) was not glow to point out during the discussion

that the Upper House had previously adjourned until next Tuesday. FINANCIAL STATEMENT While parties and members were jockeying for favourable positions in front of the microphone to condemn or defend high taxation, opportunity was taken during the week to make some further progress with the debate on the Financial Statement. This discussion was completely overshadowed by the discussion on the taxing Bill and hardly anything occurred to relieve its monotony. The Budget debate has now stretched over nine sitting days and speeches have been given by 34 members—l 7 Government, 16 Opposition and one Independent. The general impression is that the debate will finish on Tuesday. There are still several members who -are prepared to speak, but Mr Nash should be able to deliver his reply on Tuesday night or on Wednesday at the latest. The way will then be open for consideration of the estimates and for the discussion of the Government’s proposed legislation, practically all of which has still to be introduced.