LAND AND LABOUR.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16487, 28 February 1914, Page 4

LAND AND LABOUR.

(This column, weekly set aside for the discussion of land and labour problems, is edited by Mr Arthur Withy, general secretary cf the New Zealand Land Values League, with whom alone rests tho responsibility for the opinions expressed therein.) OUR UNJUST TAX SYSTEM. DENOUNCED BY SIR JOSEPH WARD. “THE BURDEN SHOULD BE PLACED UPON COMMUNITYCREATED VALUES.’’ Addressing a meeting of his constituents at Winton on Friday night, tho Right Hon Sir Joseph Ward, M.P., declared that “ the question of taxation is ono of great importance. The difficulty of our present' system is that it provides in a great ineasuro for indirect taxation, and its incidence is plainly unjust to tho poorer classes. This method of taxation is adopted because the person who pays does not know how much he is paying, and probably is not oven aware that he is contributing anything. Involved in the system is also the question of protection, but the community to-day is in complete ignorance of the cost to it of this system, and it is more than probable that if tho facts were officially published, the public would require radical revision of the system. The,whole scliemo of taxation needs revision, and tho burden should, as far as is practicable, ho placed upon community-created values, but so that existing interests should have duo consideration.”

PRESENT GOVERNMENT HAS NO

MANDATE.

Sir Joseph also declared, and declared with truth, that the Liberal Party was not defeated at tlio polls in 1011, and that the present Government has no mandate from the people. Indeed, analysing tho votes cast at the last general election, the Liberal leader showed that “the members who voted for Mr Massey (including the Liberals who went over) polled only 38 per cent of tlie total votes recorded, so that it is beyond all question and cannot by anyone bo honestly disputed that the Massey Government had not a majority of the electors who recorded their votes supporting them.” Unhappily, Sir Joseph Ward’s denunciation of our unjust tax system and his declaration that “ the burden should, ns far as is practicable, be placed upon community-created values,” is somewhat belated. It comes, in fact,

JUST TWO YEARS TOO LATE. And the same may be said about his realisation of the unfair and, flukey character of our electoral system—a system that would he only very slightly amended by the adoption of his suggestions that “ all men taking office in future Governments should resign and submit themselves to their constituents, as should also any member who, for what ho may personally consider good reasons, crosses over to any party to which he was elected as an opponent.”

Tlio latter is a suggestion that certainly ought to bo adopted. Indeed, to resign and submit himself to his constituents would bo the natural and only possible course for any man with a lino sense of honour who felt impelled for whatever reason to'cross over from one party to another. But, as regards the first suggestion, it would be a great mistake for New Zealand to adopt a mode of procedure which even at Homo lias long outlived the reason for its existence and is pretty certain to be abandoned in the not far distant future. The only just and scientific electoral system is that known as proportional representation. But Sir Joseph Ward seems 'even yet unprepared to accept and to champion this system. One trial cf the second ballot should have been enough to reveal to him its unjust and flukey character, and a careful study of proportional representation would have shown him that it is at one? “ perfectly simple and simply perfect.” That bo is now out of office, Sir Joseph Ward has only himself to thank. If he had made in 1911 the declaration that he has at long last made as to tho unjust character of our taw system and the necessity for plncing the burden as far as practicable on community-cre-ated values, and if in 1911 he Rad declared strongly for proportional representation—if, in short, he had taken the advice of the Hon George Fowlds and given New Zealand a bit of “ the Lloyd George touch” by increasing the land tax and reducing tho Customs taxes on the necessaries of life and lowering our unduly high railway freights and fares, and if he had forced through Mr Fowlds’s Proportional Representation Bill—Sir Joseph would have saved his own “ bacon,” he would have saved his party, and, what is far more, he would have saved his country

from three years—Heaven forbid that it be more than three years!—of reactionary pro-monopoly misgovernment by Massey’s Minority. Ministry. However, better late than never. Sir Joseph “MISSED THE’BUS,” and missed it badly, in the session of 1911. But, if he will only “ got a move on ” and show the people of New Zealand that he is thoroughly in earnest and means business in regard to thoroughly democratising our electoral system and putting the burden of 'taxation on the community-earned increment instead of on tho necessaries of life, Sir Joseph may yet stand a good chance of catching the ’bus at the forthcoming elections, and may even have tho good fortune to find himself once more in the honoured position of driver of the ’bus. He will have to “hustle some,” however, as the Yankees say, if ho -wants to “arrive.” It is strange that tile Press Association report of the meeting made no reference to tho Liberal leader’s important pronouncement' in regard to putting the burden of taxation .as far far as practicable, on community-cre-ated values—an omission which led the editor of the Wellington “Pest” into the absurd position of saying that be eould see in Sir Joseph’s speech nothing about making land monopoly impossible. “If Sir Joseph Ward has >a policy that will make land monopoly impossible,” adds the “Post,” “why does he not enunciate itP In default, ho must not complain if the inference is drawn that ho does not possess such a policy. And that alone would depreciate the future reform value of Liberalism by at least 60 per cent. Though the time is long overdue, Sir Joseph Ward has failed to make good on

THE GREATEST POLICY QUESTION BEFORE THE COUNTRY.”

It is good, very good, to find the “ Post ” declaring that to make land monopoly impossible is “the greatest policy question before the .country.” That statement is true, and it is also true that to have no policy to make land monopoly .impossible' “ would depreciate the future reform value of Liberalism by at least 50 per cent ” possibly, indeed, by 100 per cent, for a “ Liberal ” party without an effective policy for putting an end to land monopoly is in these days worth little or nothing. But it is strange that the “ Post ” missed Sir Joseph Ward’s pronouncement on land taxation, the only really effective measure of land reform, since the “Post” confesses to “a rapid perusal ” —perhaps a too rapid perusal!—“of a special report of nearly twelve columns in the ‘ New Zealand Times:’ ” It is all the more strange as, in its leading article the “New Zealand Times’ - calls special attention to “ the declaration that the time lias arrived for a revision of the whole scheme of taxation, on tho principle of placing tho burden upon community-created values. Here,” adds tho “Times,” “is something statesmanlike, that will give working men and women in town and country, business men, farmer,s, in fact the whole of the useful part of the community, hope for tho future and faith in the years to come when the policy shall bo placed in the realm of accomplishment.” WHAT IS NEEDED.

M’yes; but Sir Joseph Ward must remember that, so fftr as he is concerned, the hope and faith of the people of New Zealand, have had some very rude shocks; and if he would rehabilitate himself in their regard, he must “ make up his mind for good and all ” in regard to the question of proportional representation, and he must bo much more definite than he has yet seen fit to be in regard to what he proposes to do in the way of revising our confessedly unjust system of taxation and placing the burden more and -more on community-created values. He must make it very clear that his “ consideration for existing interests — i.e., his consideration for those who are now pocketing what rightfully belongs to the community—will not be of so tender a character that but little of tho community-created values , will he diverted from private pockets into the public coffers. It was Sir Joseph’s FAR TOO TENDER CONSIDERATION for existing interests —for vested rights in public wrongs—that “ let liim down” in 1911, and if he would not be let down with a still heavier bump in 1914 ho must he up and doing to make his calling and election sure. Failing the publication of official facts and figures exposing the gross injustice of our Custom taxes ana the heavv burden that so-called “ Protection *’■ places upon the shoulders of our people—such facts and figures are hardly likely to be forthcoming under the Massey regime!—Sir Joseph Ward should himself undertake the task of exposure; and on that head he will find some useful evidence, given by Mr F. M. King, honorary secretary of the New Zealand Land Values League, myself and others, in the report of the Cost of Living Commission. If he will do this, and if lie will right earnestly advocate a substantial increase in the land tax that will (1) make land monopoly impossible by making it unprofitable, and (2) provide

1i | , funds for a sweeping reduction of tho Customs taxes which, as I have repeatedly shown, amount, with profits and other incidentals added, to a workingman’s income-tax of at least 4s in the £, Sir Joseph Ward will make ■his calling and election as sure as is humanly possible. But—has ho the grit to do it? ARTHUR WITHY.