“TWO-EDGED SWORD”

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 779, 27 September 1929, Page 11

“TWO-EDGED SWORD”

TAX ON LAND AND INCOME DEBATE ON PROPOSALS 2'HP St.VS Parliamentary Reporter PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Today. Criticism of the Government’s taxation proposals was continued in the House of Representatives this morning when the debate on the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill was resumed by Mr. G. R. Sykes (Masterton), who described the measure as a two-edged sword. After a season in which the landowner had suffered loss through drought or for some other reason, he would be called on to pay a penal land-tax, said Mr. Sykes. Then, should he have an exceptionally good year, he would be called on to pay incometax, because it was greater than the penal land-tax. This Mr. Sykes considered was entirely unfair and inequitable. He declared that the Prime Minister, in endeavouring to get at the man with a rich unencumbered estate, had run amok, and was injuring many defenceless and less fortunate persons in the process. STEP TOWARD SOCIALISM

Mr. \V. H. Field (Otaki) stated that he was satisfied that the Bill would operate in a very brutal way. He could understand the Labour Party’s support of the proposals, because he believed they saw' in them a big step toward socialisation of the land, and he urged that when the Bill was in its committee stage it should a? least be amended to grant full exemption on all mortgages up to the statutory amount. Mr. K. S. Williams (Bay of Plenty) suggested to the Prime Minister that the date for the assessment of farmers* incomes should be postponed from the end of March to the end of August or September, pointing out that by the end of March the farmer could only guess at what would bo the financial result of his j'ear’s operations.

Mr. Williams said that he could not understand why any man with ail inclination to success on the land should be hampered in his ambition. He had no objection at all to the landowner paying his fair share, but in the interests of the Dominion as a whole his range of progress should not be limited. To a certain extent there seemed to be a general tendency to belittle the success of a man on the land.

Mr. H. Holland (Christchurch North) said that he considered the fact that the Bill presupposed hardship was sufficient to condemn the measure. He did not think it would take two or three years to classify land. It should be possible to obtain classification of the large estates in a very short time, and with such information at the Government’s command it should be possible to formulate a more equitable system, and obviate the need for the hardship clause. MR. FLETCHER’S CRITICISM Mr. J. S. Fletcher (Grey Lynn) refuted the suggestion that the Bill would affect the smaller landholders, but he stated (hat when the Bill was in committee he would move an amendment in relation to the hardship clause. He did not believe that the commission should be appointed by the Governor-General-in-Council. He objected to the principle of Government by Order-in-Council, believing that Parliament should rule. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Patea) insisted that the proposed legislation would depress land values and in doing so it would affect every farmer in the Dominion. He doubted whether it would be possible, in many instances, to get renewals of m : tgages. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Napier) stated that he hoped the Government, when acquiring land for closer settlement, would take up property in Hawke’s Bay, in which district there was ample scope for progress. In this respect he hoped that the Government would eventually revise the whole taxation system, though he realised that it could not be carried out immediately. The Right Hon. J. G. Coates, Leader of the Opposition, said he had previously suggested that the Bill should have been referred to a committee of the House. This would have been in a direct line with precedent. He referred to the extent of the alterations which this course had involved in the past, and he considered it would have been of considerable advantage to have followed that example in the present instance. The Leader of the Labour Party had referred to the increase in the value of the farmers’ products last year, but he had made no reference to the increase in the farmers’ costs. That was an aspect which to be taken into consideration. The House adjourned at 1 p.m. Yesterday’s Parliamentary News appears on Page 7.