WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 August 1922, Page 1

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

LICENSING REFORM

DISCUSSION IN HOUSE

SPECIAL, TO GUARDIAN

WELLINGTON, August 5

The discussion of the report of the Special Committee on Licensing Legislation in the House of Representatives on Wednesday proved a less lengthy parade than had been generally expected. The Prime Minister let it be understood early in the afternoon that lie could allow only one day for the discussion and by midnight every fnembei who wished to talk had spoken his piece and the report was laid on the table. Several of the speakers had been members of the Committee and consequently were able to give interesting information concerning the production of the report, Mr Harris, the member for Waitemata, was particularly informative on this point. He told the House that the extension of local option to the King Counry and tlio retention of the State Control issue on the ballot paper bad been carried only by the casting vote of the Chairman and that some of tlie other recommendations, including the four year’s grave to the Trade after the voting of Prohibition, had been very fairly represented on the Committee and that unanimity on any question of vital importance tfi either side was quite out of the question. FOR AND AGAINST.

The Moderates in the House were content to leave tb o presentation of their ease mainly to Mr Lysnar and Air Hockley, the Chairman of the Committee, and neither of these gentlemen did it quite justice. Air Lysnar’s assumption of the judicial attitude is alwaysmore or less of a pose, and AH Hockley, with no particular purpose to serve in doing otherwise, said the merely obvious things in the obvious way. The member for Gisborne made the mistake of misquoting in the presence of Mr Malcolm statistics concerning the amount of liquor admitted to the proliiintion districts and was promplv fallen mien by the member for Clutha with a wealth of information which entirely turned the tables. The Hon. El’. Lee, the Afinistcr of Justice, reminding the House that licensing was not a party question, declared himself an out-and-out Prohibitionist to the lengtu of believing that the impending poll would sound the death knell of the liquor traffic in the Dominion. With a majority of 00,000 east against “Continuance” at the last poll the thought the total abolition of the liquor trade was now well within the reach of the people. The other Afinisters inaint lined a discreet silence. AGRICULTURAL BANKS.

Judging from what hankers and business men here hail to say about the proposal of the Farmers’ Union Conference for the establishment of agricultural hanks the promoters of the movement have chosen an inopportune time for their effort. The bankers and business men cannot be altogether biased witnesses in the matter since many of them are saddled with farmers’ accounts they would he very glad to hand over to any institution that would care to take them. Nor would they think of objecting to the farmers making this venture into the spheres of finance and commerce so long as they did so upon their resources and without involving the State in any liability, directs* or indirectly. Short- of this they would wish the enterprise well. But they doubt the ability of any such organisation at the present time to raise capital at a rate that would enable it to lie profitably re-omployod at seven or even eight per cent. This would mean that farmers with ample security fare no belter, at any rate, than they are faring now, and that those less fortunately situated would remain as gravely embarrassed as they are at present. TAXATION AND REVENUE. In the House yesterday the Prime Minister scouted the idea that taxation was heavier in Now Zealand than it was

in Australia. He thought the rate* of taxation too high in both countries, ho said, but the per capita taxation in New Zealand to-day was less than that in 'Australia. ‘He would take the opportunity of proving it on another occasion, because lie had the latest figures. There was very little difference, but the statement lie liad been criticising was quite wrong. Of course Tiis possession of tbe latest figures, which are not yet available to outsiders, may enable AH Afassey to show that the revenue lias declined to such an extent that the contrinntion per capita is less in New Zealand than it is in Australia, but this demonstration would fall a long way short of proving that the rate of taxation is lower in the Dominion than it is in the Commonwealth. The point of the critic is directed against the Government in this respect is that its excessivo income tax with its unfair incidence has so crippled industry and enterprise that the revenue inevitably has fallen. To imply that this is proof of the taxation in New Zealand being lower than that in Australia is simply comjurihg with words.