THE LAND TAX

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2205, 18 July 1914, Page 6

THE LAND TAX

REPLY, TO MZSTATEMENTS ' . . : NO •. The Hoii? J: ■ ftLLEN-niovett 'the sec- ; oud reading ; of the Land' Tax and Income Tax B.i!J.- ■■ Hβ explained that it . was an annual Bill/and-ifiere was do alteration in""it.C-';C : ' ; : : .". ; /.' .' SIR JOSEPH WARD (Awarua) asked the Minister what was the effect of the •alteration to the: stepping system by which the land, tax was levied. He . believed that: .it had J had : tho- effect of increasing tbo , ordinary land tax toa '■' very considerable extent. Mr. Allerr.<Wh"at'are you talking about?'■■ Are-you talking about the graduated land tax?- .. Sir Joseph Ward: I am dealing with the lana'fa!x;'"and iiot referring to the graduated land. tax. lam referring to the genp.ral.effect of the alteration made bv the Minister of JTinance? . / The Stop"Systeni, ,;:*:. The PRIME aiINISTER sata it. was ■difiicult-to' vuiderstand'what ite hoo. member wantod. - Ho said he wae referrinc tb:'ths Land Tax'; Sir Joseph Ward: Bo I am, Mr. llasse.vj.'lhero has not been tlie sliKlitest increase in the land tax since we camb iiitoolEcei 'I have been surprised to .see, tho statements made by tlie lion, member. 'the graduations only had effeot- on- the graduated land . tax.' Even in that connection tho graduation tas was less on ilie loner part of Hue scale than on tho higher. The bigger results commenced at £30.000 hi" unimproved value. Sir Joseph Ward; That is not tho point. You do not understand me. , Mr. ' -Massey: " 1.. am inclined to Hiiuk the hon: gentleman does not uninistaiuLit. I havo iiiatlo a special stu'dv of .'the ■jand'Vtax. aud. .the graduati?d la)id;.tax.: - Tho graduated tax was lmvcr on; the lower stagos and higher on'unimproved values of £30,000. and ■upwards.' There had been a readjust-

ment 'as between £7500 and £30;000, but that was with tne idea of putting the tax in a more business-like form, and not with the idea of getting more taxes. There were lots of people paying more land tax than there were three years ago, but not as an increase in tho land tax, or ihe Native land tax, butbeoausoland had increased in value. Mr. Russell: Tho valuations are going up. He deferred to a petition protesting against an increase iu one district. .■:'■- ' Mr._ Massey said'that he was inclined to thinlc' the petitioners had" grounds for their complaints, but that was a matter for Departmental inquiry.. ■ He referred to- references that had been made to the effect that large estates had increased. That_was owing to_-8 return presented showing only tho value of largo estates. The apparent increase in the large holdings was due to the effect of new valuations. He said positively) as far a.3 the areas wore concerned, the number of largo estates were now less than:they wore two or threo years ago. On account of the increased valuation an apparent increase was shown. Such _ was not the .case. Ho hoped the Minister of Finance would' bo able to supply the report asked for by the hoh. member. It would go to correcting the impression which, in certain , sections, had been created by the hon. member, that there was an increase in the land tax. '' ■ Sir Joseph Ward: I have never made that/statement. , . . The Customs Tax. , Mr. Massey: L saw it , in print. The lion, gentleman has said, in plain terms, that we increased the Customs tax. Sir Joseph! Ward:-You said so,yourself, as far as the cost to. the .people was concerned. ' '. Mr. Massey: Now I have got the hon. gentleman. ■ I charge him' that • he told the .people..we increased the. Customs. duties. Is.that correct? Sir Joseph Ward: I never made that statement. I said the amount of the Customs per head had gone up, J and it is true. ■ : '. Mr! Massey: What-the hon. gentleman has been-doing is this Sir Joseph Ward: , ;l have been doing the right thing. . Mr. Massey: Probably, from his own point, of-view. ■•'■'■■ ; Not the Slightest Increase. He had left the impression that the Government had increased tho Customs duties. He (Mr. Massey) mado the statement that they had not increased the Custoins duties oh any article since they came into office by the hundredth part/of % farthing'. That was' plain ,«nough;"" : And yet the-hon. member.had gone "found and', said that 'there had been an 'increase in .taxation, Sir Joseph Ward- had. told the- people, in Wintoi" that the Government had increased-the tax by 10s. 2d. per head. Contiuuing, Mr. ftlas-soy said: "I.was glad to see he corrected it, and said'. the increase 'lad been 3s. 4d. . He had allowed -that statement to stand, and it had been from almost every platform he spoke from. Hβ had left a wrong impression. What had happened? The country was prosperous. J&ports had increased, and it followed that imports had increased. The:people had more, money to spend on dutiable goods, and because more had.been col-, lected by the Customs the honourable gentleman had been trying to twist that iact and make the people believe : the Government had increased taxation. That was the actual position. There had, been no increase in. land-tax and w> .increase in Customs tax. The only land , tax that had been increased was the graduated land tax, which affected only estates "of an unimproved value of £30,000 end-over. . ;;\u -' "."V^r^v; SIR- JOSEPH WARD .(Awarua) said" he'had never made on any platform a statement, that.the Government had increased Customs duties. - But, prior to last election, Mr. 'Massey had ; gone round the country, saying that taxation was top high, and yet, according to the Government's own return; supplied last year, the taxation .collected, per head ; of -population showed: an increase for the year 1912-13 of 3s. 4d., and 6s. lid. for the year 1911-32. The Prime Minister had not carried out his promise to the country *o .reduce taxation. .' Mr..Massey quoted fronv Sir Joseph Ward's speech at Winton, which.quotations,' by drawing comparisons between the taxation collected per head in the last three years,, seemeq to imply • Ibnt the Government had increased the indirect taxation through the Customs. Mr. Hanan: That's the way you put it."--.. '.'■ .'■ ■"', .'.-.< ; Mr; Massey, denied ,that he had ever done anything of the sort. He had uev.er-dealt in half-truths, and he quot-. Ed aßaiu the declaration of a popular lecturer, who recently visited .Wellington 1 : "A half-truth is a.dirty lie." Ho declared that the meaning: intended to be drawn from what Sir Joseph Ward had said wa3 that the Government had increased-Customs taxation per head, and had.done it by legislation. The fact was that the Government had not increased taxation by a single :. farthing. - Mr. G. W.RIJSSELL (Avon) sought to make the same point as Sir Joseph Ward had dealt with. Tho Government, he ; said, liad made concessions only to persons of property. • . ■■" \ "Hypnotised or Doesn't Know." ;, Mr. ALLEN, in reply.'to the mem'ber for Avon, who had said that any concessions given were concessions to properties, and to people of wealth, said the hon. member knew; that the concessions' were to .the poor, v The lion, member, did not vote against those concessions: He had asked why a reduction of .taxation Bill had not been brought down .last, year? It was on account, of the and waste of timo that';took -placel, , - There wa s another.'reason.... -The .then Leader of the Opposition .ha'dvsaid, at'.the:-,time that he Would , oppofit any ■reduction. What "encouragement .-had- there-been for the Government to bring down-such a.Bill?/■-• ■■'.>-'■ ;'>;V-'-.^ K - ;."'' . As to Sir Joseph Ward's request; he was not sure what the member /wanted. There was no alteration .of the ordinary land tax.. The step system 'did not apply!.to: the ordinary laud" tax;; it iapplied.to the graduated land tax. Was the , .member':trying to create-the impression, 'there-w.as' an alteration ' in the; ordinary land tax ?' .• "•' i -A.member: It was bluff! ' ; ' .' Mi - .' Allen: It was pure .'nonsense. j: Either-be is hypnotised, .and' does not .know, what he is talking about, or ho 'wants - -to make an impression that there •has beontan, increase. , Continuing, Mr. Allen-said;that tho member when reading tho"*ciause from the Act applying to graduated land-tax, was trying to make it appear, that it applied to the land tax! j Hβ. could not be ignorant of.-the position. ' ' _ Tho Bill.-was read a second time. .;. DEFAMATION BILL STATEMENT (W fcAW OF LIBEL QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE The p>% A- L, HEISDMAN , ragjei the second reading of the Deramatiou Bill. The Bill of last year had been referred to the Statutes Revision Committee, and had been dealt with by the committee, but owing to the pressuro oT business tho House had not gone on with it. A few alterations had been made in the Bill since last session, and to these he would refer later. The Bill was' an attempt to enunciate clearly certaiu leading principles relating to defamation. It had been recognised for tome lime ■ that our law relating to defamation had not kept pace with the law. of otlier countries. Especially in respect of reports of public meetings was the law of New Zealand behind tho times.. In Engknii,, l!'"«flsis* «d.

Queensland, fair and accurate reports of meetings were privileged; The Bill Was a fair one, and it would he of immense value, especially to people engaged in journalism, in giving them a collected statement of the: law of defamation. . At present it was a most diflicult matter for those engaged in journalism to determine what'was the law Testing to questions iconung before them, and what their legal position was. They were beset with difficulties. If this Bill became law they would have, and the people of New Zealand would have, a concise statement of tho law of libel. The whole difficulty in regard to the law of libel was to draw the line between the right of freedom of speech and the. right evory citizen had to have his character protected. An attempt had been made to draw that line in this Bill. ■' ' ; Truth a Coed Defence. . Hβ wont on to explain the provisions of the Bill, saying that it was not a codification of the law of libel, for the common law on the_ subject would still bo a force,' except in so far as it was modified by the Bill. Much of tho matter in the Bill,-however, was a statement of tho common law of _ Now Zealand, not previously embodied in a statute. An important new clause in tho'Bill was that which, referred to a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of any public meeting. This had never been privileged in New Zealand, and newspapers in New Zealand had taken considerable risks for many, years by publishing reports of certain meetings. Fair and accurate reports of such meetings were protected in England and in Tasmania. There was a further provision in the Bill that_ it should be a good defence to an action in respect of the publication of alleged defamatory matter that the alleged defamatory matter was true. It was provided that , it should be a.good defence to a charge , of.unlawful publication of defamatory, matter to prove that the alleged defamatory matter was true, and that the publication of it was in the public interest. 'In 1910 an alteration was madfe.m the law which required a defendant'to prove, before calling any evidence as .to the truth of the;alleged, defamatory matter, that the publication was in the public interest, That was a very radical change in the law, which was not being re-enacted in this Bill. Opening the Door for Libel. SIR JOSEPH WARD (Awarua) thought that the proposal to free newspaper editors, publishers, and lrom. responsibility .for the most, wild libel, provided they could show thatthey'had no knowledge of the libel:going in'the Press; was one that.would meet with- disapproval. The Minister proposed to repeal an amendment ma<le to the Act in 1905, by. Mr. ■ Sfiddon, whereby it was possible to take ciiininal proceedings for slander, or oral deiamation, where that slander was uttered in tho presence of more than twenty persons. Public .men might then be libelled by any disreputable person, and the onus of proof would be upon tho injured persoji. (As the Act stood the onus of prooi was upon the man making the libel;''. - ~ ''- Mr. Herdman: You are quite wrong. .Continuing, Sir Joseph W a ?d taid that merely because someone,else had said it was' a good' thing was not' sufficient reason for ; him to support it. Tho honourable gentleman had - said that members of i'arliament were protected, but what /about - the case 'of the man wiio'weiit and made a 6peech in public, and-made a defamatory statement; about a member? Any newspaper could then publish it, and be exonerated under the proposed amendment. It , was an •attempt to create ,a condition in the; newspaper Press, that would give them .the rignfc to pub.tish tiling .'that- a disreputable person .said' at. a" public meeting.' On tho whole, tjie Press of -the country was-something- they ha'd" a" reason to ; bo proud of, but they knew there were exceptions. JSo pub'icman would be immuno from any' unfortunate, creature who would'accept payment for attacking, them.. If they removed Clause "Si 36 from the Consolidated Sta-tutes-and Clause 11 of the Act, and substituted-the proposed clause, public men would not face the risk they would run. What was the need of widening, the power, unless the newspaper proprietors had applied for it P He did not had done so. As far as ho couldremerabet, during his Parliamentary connection, there had only been three or four actions for libel against newspapers for libelling publio mfn through , their utterances. were opening the door for unrestricted libel of public men. A Comprehensive Measure. Mr. E. P. LEE (Oamaru) thought the Minister was to be complimented on the comprehensive measure he had placed before them.- He did not think they need have any apprehension if the proposal 'went through. It was not right that the criminal law should bo invoked against the proprietor or editor of a paper, unless it could be shown, the libel was published with evil intent. The action for civil damages still remained. .'.■•■-.■". Mr. J. A. HANAN (Invercargill) protested against freeing thei newspapers from restrictions that applied' to individuals with regard to statements they made. ■■-. Mr;' R. M'OALLUM (Wairau) said that;o newspaper had.ho more right to protection for the. publication of defamatory matter than any private individual. It was quite a mistake to suppose that newspapers were institutions established mainly for the public good. They wore purely profit-earning institutions. He maintained that the widening of tho privileges of newspapers as proposed inithe Bill would drive intelligent men of ■ high integrity out of public life. . l : ■. . ■ Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) did not approve of the Bill. He contended that the proposal to niake it no cause of action if a newspaper published fair and accurate reports of the proceedings of any public meeting, so far as the matter published related to matters of public concern, would allow a "man of straw" to be put up at a public meeting to make defamatory statements about public men. .An 'unscrupulous paper could pay a man to make thosb statements, and could publish them with the idea of injuring the public man referred! to. -They were entering upon an election where three great issues would be unfolded. There would bo many lanes of. attack; open to. those who were unscrupulous and vindictive, and' the Minister proposed to open the door for newspapers to-publish those attacks. Further, ho hola that the clause in tho Act making it necessary to show that any published statement was for tho public good, beforo going into tho truth of it, was absolutely sound. There, was uotlung at present to prevent the papers publishing fair reports and fair comment on matters of public interest. Mr. J. PAYNE (Grey Lynn) thought that the Bill was going to call into being still more of the '"guttersnipe Pres3" element,,which lived by a species of veiled blackmail. The kind of Defamation Bill that -was heeded was the one that would rootect tho individual right up to the Kit. in the pub.Ho interest. •JThe Jfion. A, L. HERDMAN, p reply, said that his first reason for advancing tho Bill was that it was in the public, interest; secondly, it was a distinct advance on tho present lnw. It was to tho interest of the public that the papers should be given a freedom to publish matters of public interest. They were still bound, under his proposal, to show that the niattere published were matters of public iutercst. He could not understand the objection taken to tho proposal. At present newspapers were under' a -certain risk iu reporting public meetings. Reference bad been made that a turn) "public meet ing" had been restricted. The roason for tbo insertion of tlie chuißO was that it had beou hejd in ,tha Old

Country that local bodies could call a mooting, which was a restricted meeting. Experience in tho past showed that his proposals did not operate unfairly. There were no complaints in the countries whore they wero tried. Ho thought tho present position allowing a. man to he fried by a Magistrate for a defamatory statement was a hardship. A misconception existed with regard to Clause 28. * It absolved a proprietor from, criminal liability where it was. shown he was not aware of tho insertion of tho error. Ho was still responsible under the Civil Act. Tho real culprit, who'allowed the defamatory statement to get in tho paper was still liable. The sub-editor of' tho paper could be proceeded against. The, Bill was read a second time by 33 votes to 21. The division list was as follows:— Ayes (33): Allen, Anderson, J. Bollard, ft. F. Bollard, Bradne.fr, Campbell, Dickson, Esoott, Fisher, Fraser, Guthriei Harris, Herdman, Herries, Hine, Hunter, Lee, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, A. K-. Newman, Nosworthy, Okey, Pearco, Reed, Rhodes (2), Scott, F. H. Smith, Statham, Sykes, G. M. Thomson, Wilson. Noes (21): Atmore, Busfcon, . Colvin, Craigie, Davey, Ell, Forbea, Glover, Hanan, M'pallura', M'Combs, Mac Donald, Payne, Poland, Robertson, Russell, Sidey, Voitch, Ward, Webb, Witty. £airs:— \ . Ayes: Young, Buchanan, Bell, Wilkinson. Noes: Dickie, M'Kenzie, Seddon. leitt. The House rose at 11.28 p.m.