SIR JOSEPH WARD, THE REFORM GOVERNMENT, & TAXATION.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1993, 25 February 1914, Page 4

SIR JOSEPH WARD, THE REFORM GOVERNMENT, & TAXATION.

Sir,—Speaking at Wintpn on Friday, February 20, Sir Joseph' Ward is reported by the Press Association to havo referred to the question of taxation. U'he report in question states: Sir Joseph Ward said that the Massey Government had, as its own records show, increased taxation on the people of this country by 10s. 3d. per head. The fact remained in spite, of all criticism. The fuller, more complete, and, presumably,'.''official", report of Sir Joseph Ward's Utterances which appeared in the "New Zealand Times" on Saturday, February 21, reads as follows:— It is perfectly idle for the Mn'ssey Government to attempt to refute tlio. fact that, since they have taken office, the taxation of the people has risen by 10s. 3d. per head for every . man, woman, and child fn the Dominion, because in tho Year Book issued under the authority of the present Primo Minister for 1913, on ' Pago-781, you will find it stated that the taxation when the Ward Government left office in 1911 was £4 165.. lid. Tho first year of tho M'assey .Government it rose' to £5 3s. 10d., and in 1913 it further rose to £5 7s. 2d. ; . Wo may take it for granted that tho "Times" report, which, was evidently supplied to that journal,-covers a correct statement of what Sir-Joseph Ward actually did say, as tho necessarily condensed report supplied, by the Press Association covers the same alleged fact. Tho word "alleged" is used advisedly, because it is apparent from the official records, .and even the same authority (the' Year Book) as that quoted by "Sir Joseph Ward, that the statements made by the Leader of tho Opposition not only misrepresent , the ..position, misstate the facts, and saddle tho Massoy Administration ' with responsibilities which largely belpng to their predecessors, but are unworthy in the method of their presentment. Hero are tho facts: (1) Tho Ward Government did not leave office in 1911, but retired™ March 28, 1912, .three close of the- financial ;yearj'''oft:- which. :Sir. Joseph Ward speaks as "fche-first, year of tho M'assey Government."' You, sir, and your readers, may- satisfy yourselves absolutely on this point-by rofoiv ring-to. the table of "Successive" Ministries", wliich 'appears on "Pago 56 of "The New Zealand Official Year Book. 1913," and which shows that/tho Ward Ministry succeeded to office on Aucust 0, 1906, and retired on March 28. 1912, whereas the Massey Ministry did not arsumo office until July 10,'1912, tho Mackenzie "Stop Gap" Ministry holding pffice in tho interval. . (2) It is thus clear that the responsibility for the in taxation from £4 165.. lid. in 1911 to £5 3s. lOd. por head of tho population in 1912. rests with the Ward Ministry, which held office for 362 days out of tho 365. A reference to Page 781, from which Sir Joseph Ward obtained the figures.ho uses against the Reform Government, shows that the figures, covering the "revenue from taxation" are in each instance for tho finansial year ended March 31. ... ~••'-•, ...

(3) Tho 1911, l!)i2, and 1913 fi ait res arc correotly stnted by Sir Joseph Ward, but it is,altogether untruo and contrary to fact to say that ..tho Massey Govcriimont lias ''increased taxation on tlio people of'this country by 10b. 3d. per head" of tho population. It is not even responsible for the whole of tho increaso between tho years 1912 and 1913, when tho taxation revomio rose from £5 3s. lOd. to £5 7s. 2d., or by 3s. 4d. per head of tho population. A portion at least of this increase is fairly attributable to the Mackenzie Ministry,which held office for 100 davg out of tho, 365 eovercd bv tlio financial year ended March 31, 1913. Waiving this point, however, and admitting that tho Massey Government may bo charged with tho responsibility of the increaso betweon 1912 and 1913, what does it amount to? The question is answered in the next point. (4) Sir Joseph Ward (using his own argument against Mr. Massey) himself "increased taxation on the . people of this country" by 6s. lid. Ncr head, between Mareh, 1911, and March, 1912, lifl against the Mas*ey Govenipinnt's increaso of 3s. 4d. per head. The table from which Sir Joseph Ward takes his figures shows conclusively (again using Sir Joseph Ward's own argument) that during his six years of offico ho "increased the taxation of the people" by 16s. 3d. per head (that is. from £4 7s. 7d. in 1906 to £5 3s. lOd. in 191? V and lis. fid. of this increase actually occurred between 1910 (the year of tho five-million loan) and 1911, the per capita taxation, revenue in the former year being £4 ss. Od., whereas for tho succeeding twelve months it was £4 16s. lid. Sir Joseph Ward cannot bo ignorant of those facts. Why, then, does he misapply aad misrepresent them ? From timo to time ho complains bitterly of tho "misrepresentation" to which ho nlleges ho has been subjected by members of tho Reform Government and their supporters. Surely, then, he should be more careful himself. But what do wo.find? His Winton sneoeh fairly bristles with inaccuracies and misstatements, and tho facts I liavo quoted against him aro only samples of'other facts which could be usod to demonstrate the fallacies and misleading manner in which ho chooses to criticise his political opponents did your timo and patience of your readers admit of their presentment, A word in conclusion. Sir Joseph Ward has evidently overlooked tho fact that tho Year Book is not issued "under tho authority of tho present I'rime Minister," who does not attempt ;to glorify himsolf in the fashion affected ■bv his predecessors, whose linmos and titles were blazoned forth on, the rovers and title pages of former Year Books, but is'"prepared under the instructions of tho Government of New Zealand." —I am, etc., DEMOCRAT. Wellington, February 23, 1911.