The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1929. UNDER FIRE.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18351, 23 August 1929, Page 8

The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1929. UNDER FIRE.

If the comprehensive resolution moved by file Lender of the Opposition in the House of Kepresentatives on Wednesday hijil't, took (lie House by surprise and was accepted by the Prime Minister as a censure motion, the country will at least he interested to see in (he division list published this morning, the alignment of the various groups in Parliament on the Hudget proposals. With the sagacity of an old war horse, Sir Joseph Ward quickly sensed the purport of the series of resolutions and he secured the adjournment of the House to afford him ail opportunity to prepare a considered _ reply to the criticism of his opponents. In the House last evening the Prime Minister made a vigorous defence of his Budget proposals, and as a compliment to his line fighting spirit the House good-heartedly applauded his effort. As far as the session has gone, the Labour Party has observed a very detached attitude. Labour’s front rankers have vigoroucly criticised the Government, moreover the Reform Party has not escaped castigation by Mr Holland and his colleagues. Almost every day a speaker from among the ranks of Labour’s Parliamentary representation has denounced the- Budget debate as “only a sham fight” between the United Government and the Reform Opposit.on. Mr Howard, addressing the House on Wednesday evening, said that all the sparring going on between the opposite sides of the House was merely theoretical playing up for public exhibition, which mean.t nothing. He only found one unkind reference to Reform in the Budget. For thirteen years both Parties voted together like one, and the Labour Party on coming into opposition so convinced the people that Reform was wrong that they turned them out. Both Parties facing him had voted together for years on fundamentals, so that in his opinion the present Government members were equally guilty for the mistakes of Reform. The member for Mid-Canterbury challenged the Labour Party to put the Government out, but Mr Howard replied: “From my point of view they have not had rope enough.” But Mr Howard must have been among the surprised members of the House when Mr Coates, without very much preliminary, moved the following amendment: In the opinion of this House the taxation proposals are not acceptable without further , revision and amendment on the grounds that (1) The increase of primage duty will increase the cost of living, and if further Customs revenue is absolutely required duty should be imposed on certain selected luxuries of foreign origin. (2) That the proposed increase in land tax amounts in some cases to a confiscatory single tax, absorbing the whole annual income of the property without regard to whether such property is capable of subdivision or not. Moreover, the reduction in mortgage exemption will impose a grave hardship on many farmers. (3) That if any change is to be made in taxation on the class of farmers contemplated by the Budget it should be based on the principle of capacity to pay, viz., income tax, with adequate provision for preventing aggregation. (4) Experience has shown that a proper classification of lands suitable for subdivision is essential before penal taxation is imposed. (5) That the proposals as to highway revenue are a breach of faith with the motorists of New Zealand, who agreed to the imposition of special taxation on condition that no part of this taxation was to be available for the general purposes of the Consolidated Fund.

That Mr Coates had no illusions regarding the genuineness of much of Labour’s criticism of the Government is shown by the confession he made immediately after presenting his amendment. The Leader of the Opposition said that lie had noticed in certain newspapers that it was stated that his proposed amendment was a cute move on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to inveigle the Labour Party to vote with Reform against the Government. Mr Coates explained that this was not the case and he really believed that on this occasion the Labour Party would vote with the Government. It might be that at some later stage Reform and Labour would be bound to vote together against the Government. That time had, perhaps, not arrived, and this amendment was not designed to get the Labour Party to vote with Reform. It is nevertheless quite clear to (he most casual observer that the voting on the amendment has indicated in the most effective fashion who are the sham fighters! Labour Members boasted so much about being actuated in casting their votes more by political principles than with regard to the fortunes of Parties, that the amendment presented by Mr Coates furnished them with food for thought, particularly in regard to the demand that “if further Customs revenue is absolutely required duty should be imposed on certain selected luxuries of foreign origin.” The other sections of Mr

Coates s amendment applied the acid test to quite a number of members of the United Party representing rural constituencies, no less than several independents who have been “witting on the fence” since the Budget proposals were submitted to the House. Mr Coates lias at least discharged his obvious duty to give his supporters in the House an opportunity to record their opposition to the Government’s proposals particularly the heavier impost it is proposed to levy on the farmer, the raid the Government intends making on the highways fund, and an increased primage tax which will ultimately be paid by the consumer.