The Dominion. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1911. LEGISLATION BY TRICKERY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1288, 17 November 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1911. LEGISLATION BY TRICKERY.

So many instances have been placed on record of the trickery by means of which the Ward Administration so often gains its ends that it is almost superfluous to add to the list. There is a case which occurred towards the close of last session, however, which has not attracted any attention, but is of a particularly brazen character in some respects and well deserves exposure. It relates to tho amendment of the law as to gifts under the Death Duties Act. The Act of 1909, it will probably be recalled, added materially to the taxation imposed in the way of death duties, even very small estates suffering thereby. In respect of gifts provision was made that no duty snould be- paid on gifts up to £500 in value provided that not more than that amount was given to each or any beneficiary within a period of six months. That is to say £1000 could be given in any one year to each beneficiary in two payments of £500 each. The clause of the Act bearing on the subject read as follows:

No Gift Duty shall be payable on any gift tho value of which, together with the ralno of all other gifts made tit the same time or within six months prerious!y or subsequently by tho enrae donor to the samo beneficiary, does not'exceed five hundred pounds.

The purpose of this clause was a quite reasonable and proper one. A father, for instance, who might desire to assist his son in business, or possibly to give him' a shave in his business, could do so to the extent stated without being penalised by the State in the way of taxation. It is generally conceded that the distribution of wealth should be encouraged and fhis moderate exemption from gift duty was recognised as a wise provision which might reasonably be extended. When Sin Joseph Ward brought down his electioneering Budget a few weeks ago he intimated that he intended, in view of the condition of the revenue, to extend the concessions in the way of exemption from gift duty and he was duly congratulated. So that there shall bo no room for misunderstanding on the point we shall quote his Budget reference in full:

Tho condition of the revenue, ho said, warrants concessions in our gift duty, as also those connected with estate duties when the disposition of the latter is to a stranger in blond, and 1 will ask the House to remove the duty on gifts up to £1000, on gifts from husband to wife, and wifo to husband, as also from parent to child, and up to £2W on property left to a stranger in blood.

This meant, if it meant anything at all, that the exemption would be extended to gifts of £1000 as against the existing exemption up to £500 only. This interpretation of the Budget pronouncement is emphasised by the fact that when moving the second reading of the Bill dealing with the question later in the session, the Pkijie Minister said:

Tn moving tho second reading of this Bill, I desire to Bay that it proposes to extend the aniount from £500 to £1000 under tho Gift Duties Act which may bo (riven in any one year without taxation . ..

This is plain enough. Me. J,inns Allen, however, pointed out that the Bill did not give any real concession, inasmuch as it merely provided that instead of two gifts of £500 each being possible in one year, one gift of £1000 was made possible. To this Sir Joseph Ward made the remarkable reply:

I think ho (Mr. James Allen) will recognise that whore an increase in the aniount is made from JMOO to ,£IOOO the corollary to that is that it is essential to the bonefiomry that tho six months should be extruded to 12 months. . . . When it is proppaxl to make tho amount .EJOOO it is only right: the time should be extended to 12 months.

This the public will probably think is bad enough. There is a slight advantage no doubt in being ablo to give £1000 free of duty in one sum in 12 months instead of spreading it over two periods of 0 months each; but is it not a shabby and petty piece of trickery to so frame the Budget announcement and the statement in the speech professing to explain the measure, as to mislead the public

into thinking they were getting much more than was actually the case '! This petty trickery is, as we have said, bad enough, but let us pursue the matter a little further and we shall find something very much worse. In spite of the exposure made in the House of .Representatives, when the Bill came before the Legislative Council the Attorney-General, Sir Joirx FixpriAY, in explaining its provisions said: The main object nf this Bill is tho relaxing of Iho provi>ion which limited Wits (o oscujjo luxation to .£SOO. It was telt that in -oino cases that that limitation was unreasonably low, mid that it should bo extended to tho amount which appears iu the measure. Here again we have the representative of the Government stating definitely that the Government were relaxing the existing restriction and extending the, unreasonably low limitation then in force. This is plain beyond all dispute. What then can the public think of the actual facts: that instead of extending the existing limitation the Bill actually restricted it still further. The Hon : . Mr. Axstey, a member of the Council, pointed this out. Under the then existing law, he showed, a donor could give away £uOO everv six

months to each of half a dozen sons if he pleased, but under the Bill then before Parliament he- was restricted to a total of £1000 no matter how many persons he might distribute the money amongst. And this was the concession the Prime Minister had professed to bo making to the public and which the Attorney-General also assured the Legislative Council was contained in the measure. But it may be thought by some people who do not know the depths to which the ward Administration has sunk in the way of deceiving Parliament and the country, that this restriction, instead_ of extending the existing exemption from gift duty, was due to oversight or careless drafting. But such, we regret to say, was not the case. When the true position was exposed by Mit. Akstey, the Attor-ney-General, who had previously informed the Council that the ' Bill idaxed' tho existing provisions of tho law and extended the existing power to made gifts free of duty, coolly and brazenly admitted that Mr. Anstey was quite right—that it restricted the amount that could be given to £1000 to all beneficiaries. He even went so far as to state that it was specially designed to do this, and gave reasons for it. This, be it borne in mind, after his own and the Piume Minister's statements leading_ the public to believe that the limitation was being relaxed. This is quite on a par with the general methods of the Ward Administration. Knowing that the subject was technical and involved, and relying too on members being wearied, at the late stage of the session at which the Bill came on for consideration, the measure was presented to Parliament with misleading explanations which in such circumstances would have every prospect of escaping detection. It is a most unfortunate fact that the Ward Administration seldom seems able to deal with any matter in an open and straightforward manner. It has thriven on trickery and makebelieve, and in consequence it is foolish enough to imagine that it can go on with the same sorry practices in spite of the repeated exposures which have been brought home to it.