A DIRECT CHALLENGE.

Wairarapa Age, 22 August 1929, Page 5

A DIRECT CHALLENGE.

MR. COATES ATTACKS UNITED TAXATION POLICY. WANT OF CONFIDENCE MOTION MOVED. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ADJOURNS. (By Telegraph.—“ The Age” Special.) WELLINGTON, August 21. Without a hint of his intention till the actual moment arrived, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coatee concluded his Budget speech in the House tonight by moving a motion which the Prime Minister promptly accepted on behalf of the Government as an amendment of no-con-fldence and secured an adjournment till Thursday, declaring the debate could not continue till this was disposed of. Mr. Coates accused the Finance Minister of forcing a deficit to cover up an inability to meet bls election promises. The Reform Party offered him assistance, and instead of finding appreciation, heard chargee of the socalled incompetence of the previous administration. An entirely different system from that proposed in the Budget should have been adopted if taxation required to be raised, a matter which he doubted. The Government had not recognised the effect of the supertax. It was clear to him that the Prime Minister, in his anxiety to get down the price of land and force it into the market, had failed to see the effect of these proposals. It amounted to the single tax, in cases where an encumbrance rested on the property. If Parliament wished to preserve its high traditions of fairness and justice to all citizens it would not feel happy if it damaged one citizen. The effect of the supertax on a man holding a mortgage must be that it damaged his security and where the mortgage was heavy the margin of security was gone. That applied not only to the man with £12,500 unimproved value, but to everybody down to half an acre. So far as he was concerned and those associated with him, however sacred were the rights of the man who had held land for many years, they must interfere with those rights if the land was needed for closer settlement. “We cannot allow anything to stand in the way, but always we must be fair to the individual.” Mr. Coates moved an amendment In the following terms: “In the opinion of this House, the taxation proposals are not acceptable without further revision and amendment on the grounds that:—

(1) An increased primage duty will increase the cost of living and if further Customs revenue is absolutely required, the duty should be imposed on certain selected luxuries of foreign origin. “(2) That the proposed increase in the 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 that class of fanner contemplated by the Budget, it should be based on the principle of the capacity to pay, viz., income tax, with an 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 conditions that no part of this taxation was to be available for the general purposes of the Consolidated Fund.” A SUGGESTION DENIED. Mr. Coates said certain newspapers had suggested that his proposed amendment was a cute move to inveigle the Labour Party to vote with Reform against the Government. He wanted to explain that this was not the ease, 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. The present Government proposed to go too far. What was proposed was never suggested by the Hon. John Mackenzie nor the Hon. R. McNab:- They never dreamed of going as far. What was now proposed was to the nationalisation of land and tne Reform Party was definitely opposed to it., “ONLY ONE WAY.” 1 The Prime Minister immediately announced that “This amendment can only be accepted in one way, and that is as a motion of no-confidence. That is the decision I have arrived at, and will take up till this is disposed of. I have not an opportunity of replying to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, but I can say that for misrepresentation on material points. . .” Mr. Speaker intervened with a call to order. Sir Joseph Ward: “Well, Sir, I will withhold the observations I require to make till this motion is disposed of.” He moved an adjournment of the House till Thursday, this being agreed to without a division.