FINANCE BILL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20893, 24 November 1937, Page 10

FINANCE BILL

PROVISIONS UNDER REVIEW HARDSHIP OF LAND TAX DAIRY INDUSTRY ACCOUNT By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, November 23. In the House to-day, on the second reading of the Finance Bill, Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Nationalist, Waitomo), criticised the Minister of Finance because he had not before this presented the returns for the final realisation on guaranteed butterfat prices and also made public the price paid for Picot Brothers.

Tlie Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes (Nationalist, Hurunui) said he would like to see the amount allowed local bodies for unauthorised expenditure increased. The sum allowed at present was too small and the Government wa.s always passing validating legislation to provide for excesses of local body unauthorised expenditure. He asked the Government what was being done to recognise the services to aviation of Miss Jean Batten. Other countries had thought she was worthy of recognition and she was also worthy of it in the country of her birth.

Taxation Burden Mr Forbes drew attention to the fact that it had been promised that there should be an overhaul of the whole land and income tax position in the Dominion and the hardship clause under the graduated land tax in the Bill showed that this was necessary. He thought that the present hardship clause would not satisfy very many. An aspect which had been overlooked, said Mr Forbes, was that a. man might be able to pay his taxation only at the expense of the land he farmed. The land may be robbed of fertilisers and necessary improvements neglected in order that the farmer could pay his taxes. Mr Forbes added that he did not think a Minister of the Crown should interfere with the confidential affairs of anyone as he would be forced to do under the hardship clause of the Bill, and it would place the Minister himself in a false position by acting as arbiter.

Mr C. H. Burnett (Labour, Tauranga)) referring to the borrowing powers which were conferred in the Bill for railways, said the money was for the completion of old railways which the last Government had left uncompleted. He paid a tribute to the Minister of Public Works for his energetic policy. With regard to the graduated land tax hardship clause, he agreed it was necessary to have a classification of land throughout New Zealand, and he thought the Minister should consider the inequitability of the tax in some cases.

Mr B. Roberts (Labour, Wairarapa) said they wanted a policy of expansion not contraction. The present system of dairy produce marketing had resulted in the cutting out of speculation which in one case in the past had been responsible for the loss of about £30,000. Factories in the past had been sending their produce away without any reference to the requirements of the dairy markets. The present national policy made for continuity of marketing.

Sympathetic Administration The Minister of Lands, the Hon. F. Langstone, referred to the boom in land values a*ter the war consequent on the investment of huge sums in the settlement of discharged soldiers upon the land, and said that when the slump came much more damage could have been done but for the understanding and sympathetic administration of the Lands Department. The total loss represented by the writing down of land values was £26.820,000 and the amount did not include the losses which would result from cases now under consideration. There was the closest co-operation between the Lands Department and the Mortgage Corporation and anything his Department could do to safeguard securities in the interests of the Dominion would be done. He proceeded to deal with the Government’s difficulties in dealing with the butter-box question and said the provision of the present saranac boxes meant a tremendous saving of timber and was an important factor in the conservation of the Dominion’s white pine supplies. He did not know of any other timber which was such a wonderful container for butter as white pine. Mr S. G. Smith (Nationalist New Plymouth), contended that the provisions of tenancy imposed on tenants of State houses should be much simpler than they were at present. There were a number of provisions in the Bill which the Minister might have made much clearer than he did. He asked the Minister to outline the provisions regarding the purchase of Picot Brothers.

An assurance that he would do so was given by Mr Nash. Mr Smith reminded the Minister that under the guaranteed price scheme dairy farmers themselves were paying more for their butter than previously. Unemployment Mr J. Robertson (Labour, Masterton), said that if a proper analysis were made of the unemployment position, it would be found that there was no more unemployment to-day than there had been in 1928-29, probably not so much. He considered that the Opposition was placing too narrow an interpretation on the hardship clause to give relief from the graduated land tax. Hf the Minister on the success of the dairy produce mar-

keting scheme, and said the present Government had done more for farmers than any other Government.

The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nationalist, Kaipara) said the Minister of Finance was continuing his policy of confusing the issues so that the public to-day had no real indication of what the Government’s financial policy was. He classed as bad legislation the provision setting up a commission containing the Commissioner of Taxes to adjudicate on cases of hardship under the graduated land tax. The Commission should have a personnel which was quite impartial. He contended, referring to the clauses in the Bill relating to the taxation of dividends of mining companies, that no law passed should be retrospective. If any company such as the Waihi Goldmining Company, which had been mentioned by Mr Nash, had broken the law then the Courts should deal with the case. Guaranteed Price Mr Coates expressed doubt whether dairy farmers, in view of the increasing costs, were any better off to-day than they were in 1925. If the Government wished to be consistent it would guarantee the farmer a minimum price for butterfat. He asked the Minister if the dairy industry account for the year ended on July 31. If it ended on that date, did the Minister take into account only butter shipped up to that

time or did a certain portion of it go into next year? He thought the Minister could have told them what the deficit in the dairy account was. The Minister of Education, the Hon. P. Fraser, said Mr Coates plainly had not understood the Government’s legislation regarding guaranteed prices, which was at least constructive. What had Mr Coates offered the dairy farmers? he asked. He had offered them a minimum price, the amount of which he had not mentioned and wished to abolish the guaranteed price. Mr Coates: It is not the guaranteed price, it is the fixed price. Mr Fraser continued that the Opposition was facing itself four square against guaranteed prices. It did not say what its minimum price would amount to or who would get it. Perhaps it might be lOd per lb as had been suggested by the Member for Stratford. The effort of the Labour Government, said Mr Fraser, was to give the farmer stability and security.

An Opposition interjection: Would you give the wool farmer stability too?

Mr Fraser: If the wool farmer wishes stability let him come along to us and we will talk about it.

Alleged Defence of Trickery The most extraordinary part of Mr Coates’s speech, said Mr Fraser, was his defence of trickery by the Waihi Goldmining Company in tax evasion. He had practically said it was wrong for the Government to try to track down taxation which had been evaded. He knew the right honourable gentleman did not himself believe in the ethics which he had advocated. They knew him over many years, and knew him too well for that. He had practically said in effect that if they were tricky enough to get away from the law and they could not be caught by it, then good luck to them. Mr Coates’s policy regarding dairying was weak, involved, and was aimed at the overthrow of the guaranteed price and stability for farmers. Mr W. P. Endean (Nationalist, Parnell) said the Minister of Finance had accused him of lack of patriotism in making a statement for publication on his recent visit to Sydney. He outlined the statements which had been made, and said they had all been true. He had always endeavoured to serve his country, and had served it during the strike in Auckland when certain gentlemen on the other side of the

House had been trying to prevent farmers from getting their produce loaded. He was called to order by Mr Speaker, who ruled that he could not proceed along that line. Mr Endean went on to say that he had always been a loyal citizen of the country and Empire, and always brought up his family to be loyal also. Of Benefit To Farmers Mr R. Coulter (Labour, Waikato) said there was no doubt about it, that farmers had benefited tremendously as a result of the guaranteed price. Never before had the average working farmer in such an assured position, and they would not thank the Opposition for interfering with the guaranteed price. Mr Endean had said that his statements made in Sydney had been correct. One of the things he had said was that various schemes instituted by the Labour Government would not be a success, but they had proved to be an amazing success. Was that correct? he asked. The farmers of New Zealand had nothing for which to thank the previous Government. Obviously their policy was wrong and it was left for the present Government to correct the position created by its predecessors. That the position had been corrected there could be no shadow of doubt. He agreed with Mr Forbes that something might be done for the New Zealand aviatrix, Miss Jean Batten, and said he thought that

perhaps some position might be offered her in the Dominion. Mr S. G. Holland (Nationalist, Christchurch North) associated himself with the previous speaker that something might be done for Miss Batten. He asked if the Minister would consider making the provision for the hardship clause permanent. Mr Nash: All laws for land and income tax will be consolidated next year. Mr Holland: “Probably that will be the best time to do it.” He asked if the relief provisions would apply to the tax levied in 1935-36, Mr Nash replying that they would apply for the two years during which the tax was levied and would apply to 1935-36. The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10.30 p.m.