REFORM LEADER IS ACCUSED OF CAUSING DELAY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18897, 23 October 1929, Page 7

REFORM LEADER IS ACCUSED OF CAUSING DELAY.

MINISTER OF LANDS HITS HARD IN SPEECH DEFENDING MEASURE. (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON, October 22. Throwing down the gauntlet to the Opposition by telling them in unmixed terms that the Government fully recognised that the long debate which had preceded committee work on the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill was nothing but the Reform Party’s way of obstructing the Bill’s passage the deputy-leader of the House, the Hon G. W. Forbes, made an arresting speech. “We recognise that the purpose of the discussion was to delay the Bill,” he said, whereupon the leader of the Opposition shouted heatedly, “Now that is absolutely ridiculous.” (Government and Labour laughter). Mr Forbes: What other purpose could the long discussion on the Gov-ernor-General’s message have had? Such a thing has never happened before. The Hon T. M. Wilford: Not during my time in the House. A Reform member: You’ve done it yourself. (Laughter). Mr Forbes repeated that the idea of the protracted discussion was not to elicit information, but to delay the Bill. Mr Coates: So you haven’t got an argument ? Mr Forbes: Yes I have, but when we remember that this Bill was under discussion for three days on the second reading and that it was threshed out as no other Bill has been the reason is clear. Mr Samuel: There has been no other legislation to thresh out. REFORM’S ARGUMENTS ANALYSED. Mr Forbes then dealt with some of the Opposition’s arguments. All the arguments used were, he said, those heard before the Government introduced the hardship clause. They were also the arguments heard when the mortgage exemption was £SOOO instead of £7500, and when super-tax started at £12,500. Every deputation which waited on the Government before the concessions were granted had stressed the fact that all would be well if only a hardship clause were put in, so that farmers would not be ruined. The Government had responded by provid ing a hardship clause, so now it could not be said with fairness that any farmer, would be ruined. The assumption that the Hardship Commission would not act fairl}' could not be accepted by men who did not take a jaundiced view. The truth was that the Government was out to give the fullest consideration to men who felt that they would be financially embarrassed. Men who could afford to contribute their fair share towards the country’s revenue should do so. REASONS WHY REVENUE REQUIRED. “ How could we, with an empty exchequer, a national deficit and an expenditure of £1,500,000 additional to face this year, meet the situation without seeking extra revenue?” asked Mr Forbes. Mr Coates (sarcastically): Make the farmer sweat. Mr Forbes said it was only right that fair contributions should be made by men who had large holdings. If it was more profitable to keep those holdings intact than to have them subdivided then the owners of those large holdings should pay their fair share of the country’s revenue. Especially was this true when expenses were increasing by leaps and bounds. Was it reasonable that the burden of extra taxation should be placed on some other shoulders? Surely no reasonable farmer would expect that. REFORM HAD NO HARDSHIP CLAUSE. Mr Forbes reminded the House that when the big change over took place in 1912 and Reform replaced the Liberal party on the Treasury Benches the first alteration made by Reform was in the graduated land tax, which they increased. Reform had then taunted the Liberal party by saying that it had been left to them to make increases, and they claimed that they were the real Liberal party. In doing that, the Reform party had said the reason was to burst up large estates, but it had not provided any hardship clause. Mr Hamilton (Wallace): That was a war-time measure. Mr Forbes: It was not war time It was all the time, till we took over. Mr Coates: There was a hardship clause, Section 43 of the Act. Mr Forbes said it was all very well to criticise the Government for doing what it had been asked to do. Men who found themselves embarrassed would be pleased to find there was provision for consideration of cases of hardship which would act fairly and minimise hardshij> in genuine cases. If the Reform party claimed to represent the landowners and persisted in attacking the Government for putting in a hardship clause it would be easy to drop that clause. A Reform member: Oh, you are always saying that (Government laughter) . Mr Forbes concluded by saying that every additional penny of revenue was required, and would be required in future. A REFORMER REPLIES. The Hon Downie Stewart (Dunedin West), -who sat silent all the afternoon, followed the Minister of Lands, prefacing his remarks by saying he had waited patiently to hear whether the Government had been impressed with the representations which had been made since the original proposals were announced. It seemed that those representations had been regarded as of no

importance, because the Minister had claimed to have met them all by introducing a hardship clause. The amendments introduced in the afternoon seemed to indicate that no land used at present for pastoral or agricultural purposes could possibly be the subject of hardship, but to his mind there could be just as much difficulty and hardship with lands under full cultivation as there could be with any other class. Mr Stewart believed that more progress would be made with this Bill had the Government acted on the suggestion that the measure be referred ; to a committee of the House so that it might be threshed out. Had that ■ been done everything not equitable or 1 just could have been deleted from the Bill. There would have been plenty : of time.

i Mr Stewart added that he could not • see why income tax had been provided 1 for at all, because the Government’s • land taxation proposals were or such a swingeing nature that very few farm- ] ers would be called upon to pay income tax as the greater tax. ; The Hon. T. M. Wilford: What sort ; of tax did you say? < Mr Stewart: I said swingeing not ; swindling (Reform laughter). Continu- < ing, the ex- Finance Minister said that few farmers had more taxable income i than the amount on which they would ; be taxed under the land taxation pro- i posals, and for that reason it was only ; a gesture and mockery to put income < tax in the Bill at all. This showed j

that it was unjust to subject farmers to heavy land tax, because they did not have the income to pay it. Personally he believed the Government had gone farther than the Labour party would have gone. The Labour party would not have considered such a policy for one moment, but because it was introduced by a party supposed to be less Radical than itself the Labour party accepted it as all right. In conclusion Mr Stewart said he objected to the Bill because it would mean the appropriation of the whole annual value of a property. Far better would it have been to impose income tax on farmers and leave the rest of the Bill till later on. Personally he did not believe that farmers had the income to tax. The Prime Minister had stated on one occasion in the past that he did not believe in confiscation, but confiscation could be the only effect of this measure, and that was Mr Stewart’s principal objection to it. The debate on the short title was continued.