WELLINGTON NOTES.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 March 1924, Page 1

WELLINGTON NOTES.

TIIK AVI IMAT PIIORI.KM. c NO STATK iU'AUAXTKE. t f (Spociul to “Guardian”.) : AVRI'J.XGTOX, March I'-’. t Tliore; is very gonernl satisfaction t iere -it the decision ol the Govern- ( nent lo give till* wheal growers no ; iric-e guarantee f‘>r llieir next season s ] rop. The story goes that the Minis- , or ol' Agriculture was disposed to give x he growers certain assurances >ut that the Prime Miniser sot his | ace firmly against llm indefinite con- , mi ion oi' subsidies, however they j night he disguised. Public opinion on , his i|iiestion h.as lieen rapidly shaping , n the North Island during the last | aont.li or two and .Air Massey is a bet- , or judge ol' is drift than Mr Nos- , vui-tliy. Though without either a sub- . ,iily or a guarantee next, year the grow- j ■ rs' still have the protection of a duty - ,f O". nor cental upon wheat, and 2s Oil icr cental upon Hour, equal approxinately. to Is .‘hi per bushel in the case , ,f wheat, and £2 10s per ton in the . •use of Hour. The Government proioscs to ash Parliament to iutreaxe the hits- upon Hour bv U>s per toil, which. ; f parliament is agreeable, will be an additional amount- placed in the pock.ts of the millers. Just why this particular charge is contemplated is not made plain, but presumably it is intended to compensate the millers for having put more money into the manufacturing business than the needs of the country have justified. pit ESS OPINION. The “K veiling Post." which has consistently deprecated subsidies _ and guarantees in any shape or form, welcomes the Government-* decision in thi- matter and hopes the Almister oi Agriculture has not a growers’ card up his sleeve still undisclosed. “T» IS decision,” it says, “is satisfactory m ~ far as it relates to guarantees and price-fixing. The Government is acting wise!v in abandoning the guarantee policy of extension to other commodities. To continue the embargo without price-fixing would have been to allow wheat-grower' free play in an absolutely protected market Ihi' would have been in complete disregard of the interests of consumers: and it is quite right, therefore, that the removal. of the embargo should union the abandonment of the guarantee. Accordingly the growers are to have what some of them call a ‘free mar-i-et ’ It is not a free market, hecause there is still a high protective tariff against imports, and the Government proposes (as concerning Hour) to make it higher.” Mr Nosworthy himself already had admitted that a dozen mills properly equipped and running full time could produce all the flour required bv the Dominion, but “poor encourage." of the present state of «t----fairs, it seems he is going to as -

Darliament to tax the consumer by another Ills per ton. EOAIE AND DOMINION TAXATION Addressing the Commercial Travellers’ Conference yesterday the Prime Minister returned to the criticism of Afr Phillip Snowden’s comparison between British and New Zealand taxation. He held that the whole basis of the comparison was wrong. “He did not think it right.” the summary of bis remarks run, “to take into account what was paid in Customs duties because those duties were paid voluntary. He hoped that it would be found that we had not been importing too many luxuries into New Zealand. He thought they should take income tax, land tax, and death duties only into account in such comparisons, lie was not sure whether they should take totalizator tax into account, liecause the people need not pay that unless they liked ; though ho noticed that the people were almost tumbling over each other to pay taxation so far as the totalizator was concerned. Our maximum income tax was 10s in the pound, and- that was. high, but when they compared it with 7-s 3d in Australia in Federal tax alone then they got at tlm facts. A well-known Australian business man recently told him that his linn had paid over 12s Gd in the pound in Federal and State taxation.” And so on and so on. COMPARISONS AND COAT DARTSONS. Air Massey’s suggestion that Customs duties should be excluded trom tlie comparison between Home and Dominion taxation must have been intended as a jest to accord with t.ie light-hearted spirit which always pervades the gatherings of the Commercial Travellers’ Association. But surely the Prime Minister was presuming a. liule far on tlie atmosphere on the occasion. To tell such an audience that Customs duties were paid voluntarily in this country and that therefore they should not be numbered among the burdens of taxpayers was to exceed the bounds of legitimate humour. Great Britain is a free trade country anil New Zealand a highly protected one. At Home Lie aieiago householder might exist in some measure of comfort without making any very heavy contribution to the Customs revenue. But here the average house-holder could obtain scarcely one of the hare necessaries of life without paying Customs duties. Bread, sugar, tea. meat, butter, oatmeal and all the commonest . requirements ot the breakfast and dinner table are taxed. Ihe same with his clothing and liis boutwear. There is scarcely an article of any consequence that escapes Hie attention of the Customs larilV. Air Massev might have claimed that taxation was more widely distributed in New Zealand than in England, hut to contend that Customs duties should not- count was simply absurd.