SALES TAX BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 18 February 1933, Page 5

SALES TAX BILL

DEBATE IN HOUSE LABOUR PARTY OPPOSITION. (Per Press Association — Copyright.) WELLINGTON, February 17. Luring the second reading debate, Mr Armstrong said the tax would put important industries employing hundreds of people out of business. It would kill the building industry which had just begun to revive. Mr Haigest said he would support •the Biil because he believed the Minister of Finance would not have brought it down had it not been absolutely necessary. He appealed to the Government to exempt everything appertaining to the building industry from tax, because a revival in the building industry was such an important factor at the present time. Mr Wright said the Bill was prac-

tically without a friend in the House —it was an orphan, even the Government members had apologised for it—but nevertheless it would be passed. Tile clause empowering officers to arrest without warrant on the ground of reasonable suspicion was a direct violation of Magna Charth; Similarly, it Was doubtful wh^tlfely: there was any provision in the criminal code as far-reaching as that which enabled the authorities to hold a man until they, could find something out about him. Unless the majority of the House took drastic action against the clause it would be passed. In addition, the clause assumed that the commercial community was dishonest —a most unwarranted charge and unmerited. To condemn the nation as a whole was a travesty of justice. . Mr Atmore said the farmers were hard up because people could not buy, yet the Government had furher decreased the purchasing power of people and increased the cost of living. Public indignation would rise before the end of the year. He in tended to vote agains the Bill.

When the House went into committee on the .Bill,. -Mr Coates announced that a number of clauses would be held, over . pending completion of the discussions with a- number of business men who were co-operating in the endeavour • .to ; secure the smooth working of the legislation.

The determination of members of the Opposiion to hold up the Bill was then indicated, Mr Fraser moving that the chairman should leave the chair.' by-

Mr Wright steadily debated this moion, Mr Parry broke into a long series of arguments in support, and submitted that the chairman should not leave the chair, arid the House should get on with the business. iThis added fuel t ( j his colleagues’ fire,

M v I.Rugstone suggested that the length of the sitting had made Mr Parry so tired that lie had hypnotised himself in wanting to go on with the discussion.

Mr Clinkard attempted to move the closure, but the motion was not accepted by the chairman, nor was a, similar motion submitted half an hour later by Mr Mudoch. However, afer Mr Fraser’s move had kept the House occupied for an hour and threequarters, the closure was evidently applied at the instigation of MrCobbe and Mr Fraser’s amendment was defeated by 41 to 24.

Speaking on the clause providing for licensing wholesalers .and manufacturing retailers for the purpose of the Act, Mr Wilkinson urged that the necessity for the provision of security by such persons should be eliminated. He saiid the necessity for providing securifjy might conceivably be sufficient to prevent a man setting himself up in business.

Mr Coates agreed to grant Mr Wilkinson’s request and the clause was amended accordingly. Thq House adjourned r.t 1 n.m.