TO-DAY IN PARLIAMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 229, 27 September 1929, Page 5

TO-DAY IN PARLIAMENT.

LAND TAX LEGISLATION. TREATED AS URGENT. THIED DAY OF DEBATE. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON", this day. The House of Representatives met at 10.30 this morning, and on the motion of the Prime Minister urgency was accorded the second reading of the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill and of the Land and Income Tax (annual) Bill, and also the passage of the Imprest Supply Bill (Xo. 4). The debate on the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill was resumed by Mr. 0. R. Sykcs (Masterton), who described the measure as a two-edged sword. He declared that after a season in which the landowner had suffered loss through drought or for some other reason he would be called on to pay the penal land tax. Then, should he have an exceptionally good year, he would be called on to pay income tax, because it was greater than the penal land tax. This, Mr. Svkes considered, was entirely unfair and inequitable. He alleged that tho Prime Minister, in endeavouring to get at the man with a rich, unencumbered estate, had run amok and was injuring many defenceless and less fortunate persons in the process.

Auckland Member's Views. Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Grey Lynn) refuted the suggestion that the bill would affect the smaller landholders, but he stated that when the bill was in committee he would move an amendment in relation to the hardship clause. He did not believe that a commission should be appointed by the Governor-in-Council. lie objected to the principle of Government by Order in Council, believing that Parliament should rule. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Patea) insisted that the legislation would depress land values and in doing so affect every farmer in the Dominion. He doubted whether it would be possible in many instances to get renewals of mortgages. He urged that when the Bill was in its committee stage it should at least be amended to grant full exemption on all mortgages up to the statutory amount. A Big Landowner's Opinion. Mr. K. S. Williams (Bay of Plenty) suggested to the Prime Minister that thiTdate for the assessment of farmers' incomes should be postponed from the end of March to the end of August or September. He pointed out that by the end of March the farmer could only guess at what would be the financial result of his year's operations. Mr. Williams said he could not understand why any man with an inclination to win success on the land should be hampered in his ambition. He had no objection at all to the landowner paying liis fair share, but in the interests of the Dominion as a whole his range of progress should not be limited. To a certain extent there seemed to be a general tendency to belittle the success of the man on the land.

Mr. H. Holland (Christchurch North) said he considered the fact that the Bill presupposed hardship was sufficient to condemn it. He did not think it would take two or three years to classify the land. It should be passible to obtain classification of large estates in a very short time, and with such information at the Government's command it should be possible to formulate a more equitable system and obviate the need for a hardship clause. Mr. W. H. Field (Otaki) stated that ho was satisfied the bill would operate in a very brutal way. He could understand the Labour party's support of the proposals, because he believed they saw in them a big step towards the socialisation of the land.

Mr. W. E. Barnard (Napier) said he hoped the Government, when acquiring land for closer settlement, would take up property in Hawke's Bay, in which district there was ample scope for progress in this respect. He hoped that the. Government would eventually revise the whole taxation system, though ha realised that it could not be carried out immediately. Mr. Coates' Suggestion. The Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. J. G. Coates, said he had previously suggested that the bill should have been referred to a committee of the House. This would have been in direct line with precedent. He referred to the extent of the alterations which this course had involved in the past, and said he considered it would have been of considerable advantage to have followed that example. The Leader of the Labour party had referred to the increase in the value of farmers' products last year, but he had made no reference to the increase in farmers' costs. That was an aspect which had to be taken into consideration. The House adjourned at 1 p.m.