END OF STONEWALL

Hokitika Guardian, 30 October 1929, Page 7

END OF STONEWALL

T!!E FINAL SPEECH. MINISTER’S STRONG JUSTIFICATION. OPPOSITION 'SMOKE. SCREEN DISPERSED. (Special Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, October 25. The final stage in the long battle for the passage of the Land and Income Tax Act Amendment Bill was a vigorous speech by the Hon. G. W. Forbes, acting-leader of the House, who had taken charge of the measure in committee and kept his place almost continuously throughout the many hours of discussion. He reminded members that twentythree hours forty-five minutes had been soent on the second reading of the Bill, six hours fifty-five minutes on consideration of the Government’s amendments J introduced on Tuesday, and forty-eight hours fifty-five minutes in the committee stage. -That, he suggested, was giving a good opportunity for dicussion, yet some members had actually accused him of gagging tactics. “I would like to know what would happen if there were no gagging tactics. We would have no business done at all,” said Mr Forbes. Then, he con+inued, when the Leader of the Opposition, after forty-eight hours fiftyfive minutes of discussion, had asked for nil extension of time it was granted, Mr Coates: What about the leader cif the Labour Party? THE SMALL FARMER SMOKE SCREEN.

Mr Forbes: Pie. had spoken very little indeed during the forty-eight hours, and on merit he deserved his extension in an endeavour to record his views and those of his party. As for the views of the Reform Party, said Mr Forbes, there was not a member who did not know them. They had put up the small farmer in front as the smoke screen, but one couPd realise from their real attitude what was the line of demarcation. It was the same as in the old days, when what divided the Liberal Party from the Conservative Party was the graduated land tax; It was still the dividing line,, with the small farther to cover up the difference between the two parties. He was not going to say that somd off the arguments used did not apply, but had the Reform Party ever spent fortyeight hours over the wants of the working man? ' (Laughter.) During the sixteen years thej v were on the Ministerial benches did they ever keep members so long while, they were fighting the battles of the working man? Personally, he could not remember any long period when mpmbers had put up with inconvenience because the former Government was fighting that 'cause, Rut when the present Government was asking that some taxation be placed on the large landowner, Reform declared, “Wo will fight till the last ditch and not allow any legislation to go through,” Government members realised that there might be some hardships, and they undertook to do their best'to meet suoll oases. The Labour Party supported them whole-heartedly in that, and provision was made to meet eases of hardship. Mr Wright (Wellington Suburbs): What rot! Mr- Forbes went on to declare that there was no desire to cause the ordilU ary working farmer any difficulty. They were accused of this, but when they, brought the actual farmers affected from behind the smoke screen they found that of 80,000, only 25,000 were taxed, and out of that total the extent of taxation was £300,000. That was the contribution of that class towards the whole of the 'country’s expenses The Bill proposed that those possessing the larger holdings, from £14,000 unimproved value upwards, should make a contribution equal to about £090,000. and when one looked at the extent of country and wealth represented by it it could not be suggested that anything undue was being asked from these men.

PROFIT IN LARGE HOLDINGS. This class all held large holdings and it was an argument frequently heard that the overhead expenses of this type were less than those of small holdings. They had been told that if the Government cut up these areas overhead expenses must increase, and they could not be worked at a profit. That showed that large holdings produced more profit, and this taxation was based on the larger holdings, but, if any of those landowners were in difricnity, so that they might not suffer hardship a tribunal was being set up to avert hardship. ' VIEWS OF FINANCE MINISTER “7n entrusting this legislation to me” continued Mr .Forbes, “the Minister of Finance gave me this assurance that f was fully justified in doing everything I could to show to the House That it was his desire that in the matter of hardship every precaution should be taken to see that there woum be none of these serious cases wh.ch could not be covered by the tribunal, and the tribunal set up will carry out toe inten tion of the Government in that rerespect.” Referring to the request of the Opposition leader to cut out the word serious,” Mr Forbes suggested that the case of any man who made an appeal to the Government to he relieved oi taxation was serious, and ont> would

not expect frivolous cases to be submitted. Hardship was a comparative term. Some men would consider it a hardship to be deprived Of luxuries and it was the general experience that those who sang out loudest were the least hurt. It must be serious hardship before the concession of complete lilting of this taxation could be agreed to. The Government had to produce the revenue to enable its Budget to be balanced.

LAND VALUE ARGUMENT. Mr Forbes proceeded to deal with the argument of the Leader of the Opposition that the new tax would reduce land values, and that in some cases the equity in land would be destroyed. He would like, to ask the same gentleman this-question : “What would be the effect on the land values of this country if the finances of the country were not kept in a sound basis, and if this country’s credit were not kept on a sound basis, and its reputation for sound finance was to go down?” The Prime Minister had made it his first consideration to keep up the country’s reputation in this respect, yet many members, to curry favour with their constituents were prepared to take away revenue. If the Government took the narrow view that its proposals would not be popular if' it asked an increase of taxation from any class this would be bound to react on the prosperity of the Dominion, hut the Government preferred boldly to face the situation.

Mr Kyle (Riccarton): And rob the people. Mr Forbes : But when you have a Government which will put up with determined opposition to pass this necessary legislation, I think it must be admitted it is a Government with n full sense of responsibility and full of the desire to keep the reputation of this country as high as possible, Turning to the question of mortgage exemption, Mr Forbes stated that the actual amount nskod was £25,000 from the whole of these men who were brought under it, namely men with mortgages over £7500.

AN IMPOSSIBLE IDEAL,

It was all . very r well to say that farmers should not pay taxation. The Government was also told that, if secondary industries were not taxed, local, industry would be so relieved that people would get their goods at a cheaper rate, and they were also told that, so far as Customs taxation was cdncerned, no burden should be placed on the working man. These were all strong claims, but a Government which would try to please every section of the . community in this respect would raise no taxation at all. 1

Mr Forbes remarked ironßnkv that it would he an ideal State, indeed a Garden of Eden, if the country could get on without taxation of any description, but that was impossible and all sections of the community had to be called upon to contribute their fair share. The Government had been faced with a deficit on coming into office and the first. thing it had to’ do was to make provision for additional revenue. The previous Government had nllpwed a certain class well able to pay to escape,'

Mr Coates: It took you four months to create a deficit. A Government member; You know that’s nonsense.

Mr Forbes; The whole Budget showed that there was a deficit, and our first duty was to meet it. When the position was examined it was found that men with land of an unimproved valuation of £IO,OOO, which meant a capital valuation of £15,000, were not contributing one penny as far as land tax was concerned. When we know that the cost of social services and education is increasing and that interest on the public debt is increasing we must find another one and a half million, and in face cf that we are told to keep our hands off a certain class. From that class we ask the modest sum of £25,000. Mr Forbes ridiculed the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition that concession on freights on manures Were by way of co-operation of the State with industry. That was merely clouding the issue. That co-operation really meant that assistance was given the primary producers to enable them to carry on.

Mr Martin (Raglan) interjected that that was scarcely the way to put it. The concessions meant a profit to the country.

Mr Forbes: They are to assist the farmer in carrying on, and the concessions on fertiliser (freights have to he provided by the general taxpayer. Mr Poison (Stratford): What about the assistance given to secondary industries.

Mr Forbes said that was assistance to help them carry on.

Mr knshworth (Bay of Islands) : Misrepresentation ! Mr Forbes: I am not taking any notice of that member who has some peculiar theories. To indulge in those theories would be disastrous. Everyone gets these freight concessions, including some who are well able to pay. The member for Stratford gets them, and I get them, so it cannot be said that all who receive them are in the hardship class. As long as lam Minister of Agriculture I will do my best to carry out the policy of giving those concessions. Mr Martin: We hope you will do more. Mr Forbes: I would do more if only l could sret more money. The Minister concluded by complimontine the T a hour Party on its action in refraining from obstructing the Bill’s nassage though it had assisted to minimise any hardship that might be created. The Bill was read a third time by 48 to 25 votes and passed.