GOVERNMENT POLICY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 279, 24 November 1937, Page 8

GOVERNMENT POLICY

THE FINANCE BILL OPINIONS IN PARLIAMENT GRADUATED LAND TAX REFERENCES TO HARDSHIP CLAUSE [ Per Press Association. 1 WELLINGTON, Nov. 23. Continuing the second reading debate on the Finance Bill, which was interrupted by the adjournment of the House of Representatives last night, Mr W. J. Proaafoot (Opp., Waitomo) appealed for a reduction ot the taxation being imposed on racing clubs. The Government, in a time of prosperity like the present, could give relief to these clubs to enable then* to increase their stakes and make other necessary improvements. He instanced the fact that many of the big racehorse owners were taking their horses to Australia to take advantage of the better stakes offering there. Why not give the clubs relief for only one year, he asked. He criticised the present system of granting relief in cases of hardship, which ne said was liable to lead to patronagby Ministers. He thought they were exacting too heavy a toll from tht people who did bet on horses. Personally, he did not believe in betting, which appeared stupid to him, but it seemed to be ingrained in the British people. There could be a direct reduction in taxation if the problem were tackled -correctly and the large amount of illicit betting going on today brought within the proper taxation channels. Mr Broadfoot criticised the Minister of Finance because he had not before this presented returns for the final realisation on the guaranteed butterfat prices and also made public the price paid for Picot Bros.

Hon. G. W. Forbes 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 was always passing validating legislation to provide for excesses 01 local body unauthorised expenditure.

He asked the Government what was being done to recognise the service* to aviation of Jean Batten. Other countries had thought she was worthy of recognition and she was also worthy of it in the country of hei birth. Land and income rax 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 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 that 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 (Govt., Tauranga), referring to the borrowing powers which were conferred in the Bill for the railways, said the money was for the completion of old railways which the past Government had left uncomplete. 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 that 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 W. J. Polson (Opp., Stratford) said he was sorry the rural advances department had gone. It had been a fine co-operative organisation ana cow it was being replaced by a machine. It might have been of inestimable value to the producers of the country. He thought the hardship clause in the Bill was the worst that had been promulgated up till the present. It put unprecedented legislative power into the hands of one man, namely the Minister of Finance. He did not suggest that the present Minister would do anything improper. Lively Passages A Labour interjection: He is responsible to Parliament. Mr Polson: No, he is not. He is a pure autocrat. When it comes to a decision of the Commission the dice are loaded against the appellant. The Commission comprises three of the hardest of our civil servants. Even if they did say that a case of hardship existed the Minister might consider the case and say that there was none, and there is no appeal against the Minister’s decision. Mr Polson said that the Minister had previously opposed such a course but now he had put it into his own Bill. Personally, he would not like to refer a case to the Minister. . Mr A. F. Moncur (Govt., Rotorua): Perhaps the hon. member would rather have the Commissioner of Police on the Commission? Mr Polson: I’d rather have the Commissioner of Police than the Minister, because the Minister is a fanatic. Mr Moncur rose to a point of order, asking if Mr Polson was entitled to use the word fanatic. The acting-Speaker, Mr E. J. Howard: The Minister himself has not objected to the use of the word. Hon. P. Fraser: He accepted it knowing the quarter from which it came. ‘Laughter). Mr Polson, continuing, said that the Minister had power to override the law itself. He had traduced members of the Opposition, saying they were saying things which were not In the interests of the Dominion Decause they had dared to point to the Ganger of a depression. The Attorney-General, Hon. H. G. R. Mason, rose to a further point of order, contending that Mr Polson had no right to use the word “traduced.” The Speaker, Hon. W. E. Barnard, ruled that “traduced” was not an unparliamentary word. Mr Polson said he would not have used the word if the Minister had not i \ing across the floor in the form of

an interjection that he (Mr Polson) did not know how to be honest. * The Speaker: Does the hon. member object to the Minister’s expression? Will he raise a point of order? Mr Polson did not raise a point ot order but merely contented himself with objecting to the Minister’s remark. Continuing his speech, Mr Polson said it was only the present boom limes which enabled the farmers to pay the present heavy taxation. There should De a hardship clause introduced which would prevent the farmer being stripped of everything he possessed in the event of a depression. He urged a classification or land, which would enable the land which could bear taxation to pay it and the land which could not would be exempted. Some scandalous injustices had been perpetrated under the present system of taxation. Dairy Produce Marketing Mr B. Roberts (Govt., 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 product, away without any reference to the requirements of the dairy markets. The present national policy made for continuity of marketing.

The Minister of Lands,. Hon. F. Langstone, referred to the boom in land values after the war consequent on the investment of huge sums in the settlement of discharged soldiers upon 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 £6,820,000 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 that the provision of the present saranac boxes meant a tremendous saving of timber and was an important factcn. in the conservation of the Dominion's white pine supplies. He did not know of any other timber which was sucn a wonderful container for butter as white pine. The House adjourned at 5.3 U p.m.

When the House resumed at 7.30 p.m. the debate on the second reading of the Finance Bill was continued by Mr. S. G. Smith (Opp., New Plymouth), who 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 being given by Mr. Nash, Mr. Smith continued by reminding the Minister that under the guaranteed price scheme the dairy farmers themselves were paying more for their butter than previously. Mr. J. Robertson (Govt., 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 and 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. He congratulated the Minister on the success of the dairy produce marketing scheme and said the present Government had done more for the farmers than any other Government. “Confusing the Issues.” Hon. J. G. Coates (Opp., Kaipara) said that the Minister of Finance was continuing his policy of confusing the issues so tnat the public to-day had no real indication of what the Government’s financial policy was. He classed as bad legislation the provision for setting up a commission containing the Commisisoner 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 Ice taxation cf dividends of mining companies, he said that no law’ passed should be retrospective. If any such as the Waihl Goldmining Company, which bad been mentioned by Mr. Nash the previous evening, had broken the law, then the Courts should deal with the case. Mr. Coates expressed doubt wnether the dairy farmers, in view of 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 butter-fat. He asked the Minister if the dairy industry account year ended on July 31. If it ended on that date, Mr. Coates asked, 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 lold them what the deficit in the dairy account was. Minister's Reply. The Minister cf Education, Hon. P. Fraser, said that 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 a guaranteed price. It is a fixed price. Mr. Fraser continued that the Opposition was facing itself four-squara 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 pound, 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. 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. The most extraordinary part cf Mr. Coates’ speech, said Mr. Fraser, was his defence of the trickery by the Waihi Goldmining Company in tax evasion. He had practically said it was wrong for the Government to try and track down taxation which had