WOOL BARONS AGAIN

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 430, 11 August 1928, Page 15

WOOL BARONS AGAIN

INCOMES AND TAXES BUDGET DEBATE EXCHANGES I (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Friday. Labour’s attack in the Budget debate opened to a familiar refrain when Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, claimed that wealthy sheepfarmers were escaping their share of taxation. Several brisk passages between Labour and the Government benches enlivened the early stages of the debate. First of all, Mr. Holland, following up a question put to the Prime Minister the day before, complained that important departmental papers were not available for this most important of debates. Discussing taxation, he said: “No matter how wealthy the sheepowner is, he does not pay income-tax. The Hon. Mr. Downie Stewart: Wrong. Mr. Holland: If a man happens to be a big landowner he is exempted from paying income-tax. Mr. Downie Stewart: Wrong again. Referring to a drop in income-tax, Mr. HoL and said if sheepfarmers had been subject to income-tax the drop would not have been registered, as there had been a bigger production of wool, involving £ 4,000,000 more in wool values than in the previous year. Yet on their shares of this huge amount farmers were escaping taxation. One family alone, in the Wellington district, owned flocks aggregating 106,000 sheep. Allowing an average of ten pounds weight of wool a sheep— Mr.. H. G. Dickie: Oh, steady; make lit eight. Mr. Holland said the result would be that this particular family’s income from wool last season would be £90,000 or £IOO,OOO. This was £20,000 more than the previous year, simply because of the better prices, yet the extra income was not taxed. It was a source of taxation that should be taxed without further delay. No member of the House could find justification for the exemption from in-come-tax of such a family as he had just quoted. Further, there were in the sheepowners’ register 15 sheepowners with flocks of upwards of 20,000 sheep, 119 owning between ten and twenty thousand sheep, and 507 owning between five and ten thousand. To these the total amount in extra income through the recent rise in wool prices was £750,000. Mr. Downie Stewart: These men would prefer to pay income-tax. Mr. Holland: I am prepared to help you make them pay it at any time. Voices: But you must take off the land-tax. Mr. Holland: Certainly not. Would you take the land-tax off the city business man, The Prime Minister: Yes. Mr. Holand: Then try it, and see what the local bodies say. The Rt. Hon. Mr. Coates: Nonsense; you are confusing local taxation with national taxation. Mr. Holland went on to say that enormous profits from wool were going into the pockets of a few sheepowners. Mr. W. Lysnar: llow do you work out your figures? Mr. Holland: I’ll take you to my room and give you a little instruction. I’ll also show you the names of some big Gisborne sheepowners who are escaping income-tax, and you won’t need me to tell you who they are. MISLEADING FIGURES Going on to other grounds of criticism, Mr. Holland said it was obvious, from the lack of information for members, that the Statistical Department badly needed overhauling. In soldier settlement they were paying to-day for the Government’s blunders of the past. The Budget was notable for its evasive statements and what is concealed. Many figures quoted therein were actually misleading. Among these misleading figures were those setting out the railway loss, said to be £291,451, whereas actually it was £78,020, the difference being made up from the Consolidated Fund. The public debt, concluded Mr. Holland, revealed need for close attention. It was taking more than half the total revenue to pay interest and redemption charges on the public debt. HON. R. A. WRIGHT IN REPLY First to reply to criticism was the Hon. R. A. Wright, who said the fall in income-tax revenue was due to the depressed assessment of the previous year. Taxation, even of large landowners, could not be carried past a certain point. Mr. D. Jones, replying to Mr. Holland said that the family he referred to as owning 106,000 sheep was the heaviest taxed family in New Zealand to-day. Moreover Mr. Holland had not put the position clearly. He had simply lumped together flocks owned by a number of men of the same name and had said that their flocks belonged to one family which was quite misleading. “Fancy, if you did that with all men named Jones,” he said, “what a flock you’d have.” Speaking generally, Mr. Jones said that the Budget was a good Budget. Ho deplored the Opposition’s inability to make any real analysis of the financial position; instead their criticism took the form of demands for more money and still more. A good feature of current borrowing was the large sum borrowed within New Zealand itself. Of the war debt, £107,000,000 was owing to New Zealanders themselves. The Labour Party, said Mr. Jones, would have to change its attitude toward Labour questions. Labour Governments elsewhere had failed, as in Australia and Russia, to solve labour problems. What was wanted in this country was cheaper production and increased wages, but cheaper production had to come first.