RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21185, 4 November 1938, Page 7

RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Recent Legislation Criticised State’s Far Reaching Privileges By Telegraph—Pres? Association AUCKLAND, November 3. "History tells us with no uncertain voice that the separation of judicial from executive power has been proved to be an essential to the maintenance of the rights of the individual,” said Mr N. B. Spencer, or Auckland, at the conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce to-night, when criticising the recent legislation constituting Ministers of the Crown as the final Court of Appeal in matters affecting the rights of the individual. Mr Spencer moved the adoption of a remit drawing attention to this “growing tendency," and urging a revive! of the traditional rights of the British subject in the matter. “The right of appeal to a tribunal which is entirely independent of politics or any other influences lies at the very root of British justice,” said Mr Spencer, who added that the interpretation of the law and the administration of justice was being placed more and more in the hands of Ministers of the Crown and departmental officers who vere, in most cases, entirely devoid of the necessary professional qualifications or experience. Flood Damage A remit referring to the substantial loss of property resulting from floods in New Zealand was brought forward by Captain S. Holm (Wellington). The remit urged the Government to take steps to prevent further destruction of the natural covering of the steep country, and proceed with a systematic policy of re-afforestation and the clearing of streams, including assistance to private landowners. Captain Holm referred to the Esk Valley catastrophe and the heavy silt-

ing of the Waikato, Wanganui end Hokitika rivers, which had become practically unnavigable. An amendment by Mr J. S. Skinner (Dunedin) to delete the words “including assistance to private landowners" was lost, and the remit was adopted. Unfair Privileges Unfair privileges allegedly enjoyed by various State trading departments were attacked by Mr A. M. Seaman (Auckland). He submitted a remit “drawing attention to the unfair privileges accorded the State is a trader under the Municipal Corporations Act, Crown Suits Act and a variety of other statutes, and urging tl t abrogation of all State privileges where the State opera’ hs as a trader in competition with private -nterprise.” The remit asked, said Mr Seaman, that the State, as a trader, should receive no privileges that were not accorded to the private trader with whom it entered into competition. The privileges of the Crown, as litigant, were very far-reaching. Government departments were exempt from much industrial legislation and from ccm-

plying with local authority by-laws, and the Crown was exempt from harbour dues. The remit was adopted. Incidence of Land Tax A motion again drawing attention to the unfair Incidence of land tax and urging the abolition of the principle of graduation was moved by Mr T. W. Gibbs (Canterbury). Mr Gibbs said that in the last 40 years there never had been such a time of difficulty in disposing of land and thus escaping unjust burdens. Tire figures were too steep, and in the lower grades they were steeper than they had ever been in the history of the country. The motion was seconded by Mr N. B. Spencer (Auckland) who said that the graduated land tax was essentially a penal tax, and had now entirely outlived its usefulness. Mr M. H. Oram (Palmerston North) moved that the following words be added: “Or in the alternative conference urges that full exemption should be allowed In respect of mortgages; that the special allowances previously in force when the graduated land tax operated on 5 per cent, of the unimproved value of land off the assessable income in computing tax should be reinstated, and that other anomalies should be immediately removed.” The mover agreed to accept the amendment as part of the motion and the remit was carried.

Company Income Tax Inequalities in company Income tax were quoted by Mr D. G. O’Toole (Wanganui), who moved that the present method of taxing companies as if they were Individuals was wrong in principle and urged that the system be equitably re-adjusted. Opinion that the principle of the taxation was fair was expressed by Mr C. L. Calvert (Dunedin). Mr A. M. Seaman (Auckland) moved the addition of the words “along the lines of the recommendations by recent caxation commissions.” Mr Gibbs moved as a further amendment the omission of the words “is wrong in principle?” and the addition of “has been carried to the limit which threatens taxable capacity and urges that the system be equitably re-adjust-ed on the lines suggested by recent taxation commissions.” The amendment was accepted and the motion carried in that form. Further Injustices Further complaints of Injustices in the Incidence of taxation were made by Mr P. O. Smellie (Dunedin) who moved a remit drawing attention to the existence of and tendency to increase unjust methods of raising taxation, calling upon the Government to remove this blot; and asking that the system of taxation commissioners be set up similar to the English system to give the taxpayer the right of appeal from a department’s ruling without having recourse to litigation. Mr Smellie said that this was not an attack on high taxation nor on the present Government. These injustices had been in the system for many years. An amendment favouring the setting up of a special Taxation Vigilance Committee was added, and the motion was carried.