LONG STONEWALL ENDED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 803, 25 October 1929, Page 6

LONG STONEWALL ENDED

Marathon Endurance Debate

LAND-TAXATION PROPOSALS Reform Gains Point on Hardship (THE SUE'S Parliamentary Reporter) PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Thursday. AT 10.45 this evening- the longest stonewall since 1925 ended after a stern fight by the Reform Party against the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill. Reform, possibly through physical exhaustion, might almost be said to have capitulated, and honours were with the Government in the "battle of the Bill.” The measure was committed with Government Amendments. The Government made a nominal concession in withdrawing formally the sub-clause relating to the hardship clause and the financial position of the applicant and the condition of his land.

.Ou resumption after lunch the House in. committee proceeded to discussion of amendments to the hardship clause introduced by GovernorGeneral's message. The Hon. G. W. Forbes explained that the clause as amended would enable other considerations, apart from financial ones, to be taken into account in cases of hardship. The Leader of the Opposition, the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, agreed that the amendment was an improvement, but he thought care should be exercised as far as the personnel of the commission was concerned. Mr. Forbes said that he had discussed the question of the commission and the suggestion was that it be composed of a magistrate, or exmagistrate, a representative of the farmers, and probably an ex-commis-sioner of taxes. The commission would make definite recommendations to the Commissioner of Taxes, who would in that way be relieved of a great deal of responsibility. Mr. Coates was of the opinion that the amendment would go a long way toward removing the objections raised on behalf of the farmers. Mr. D. Jones (Mid-Canterbury) said the clause had been worth fighting for, but unless serious hardship were defined it might prove as useless as previously. The amendment was agreed to. Then Mr. F. Waite (Clutha) moved, as an amendment, that the case of working partners should be one for exemption. The Minister thought it would be better to leave special cases of hardship to the commission. The amendment was lost on the voices. Mr. A. Hamilton (Wallace) then moved a further amendment that serious hardship should include the case of an owner called upon to pay by way of land-tax and special land-tax an amount in excess of the sum for which he would be liable if assessed for both income and land-tax under the principal Act. This would place the town and country man on the s*me basis. SUGGESTED ADJOURNMENT This was at 5 p.m., and Mr. Coates suggested that the House might agree to an adjournment until 8.30 so that he might discuss the position with members of his party. He was thankful to the Minister for what he had done with the hardships clause, and in view of what had happened it might be possible to bring the debate to a close earlier. He had not consulted with his party but was taking the responsibility for the suggestion. He thought he could satisfy the party as to the reasons for his course. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon): Does that mean you are going to make demands ? That was not the position at all, Mr. Coates said. The action he was taking was definitely to close down the debate. It might be possible to dispose of other amendments or take them on the voices. There was still the question of mortgage exemption to be dealt with, but he thought that could be overcome satisfactorily. Mr. Sullitan: If your proposals were accepted would you be in a position to close down before 5.30 tomorrow night? Mr. Coates: Long before that. EXAMPLES OF HARDSHIP The Leader of the Labour Party, Mi’. H. E. Holland: Would it depend on whether you got what you wanted? Mr. Coates: Not at all. Mr. Forbes was sure that everyone wanted to see an end to the debate. There was still a certain amount of business he wanted to get through before the adjournment tomorrow evening. There were two Taxation | Bills and four remaining classes of Estimates. Mr. Coates said that if it were jntended to put the Treasury Estimates through he was afraid a statement would have to be made about the London loan negotiations, otherwise Mr. Forbes would not get the Estimates through before 5.30. The Leader of the Labour Party suggested that the hardship clause under discussion should be postponed till next day, so that in the meantime the Taxation Department could get examples of hardship. The Labour Party was quite ready to come to an arrangement to finish off the whole discussion on the Bill some time tomorrow.

Mr. Forbes said that if there could be an agreement about the time of meeting the House could push the Taxation Bills through and have the third reading speeches in the morning. He would undertake to request the Commissioner of Taxes to furnish examples of the operation of the super-tax in the evening or next morning. If that were understood the committee would adjourn till 5.30. This was agreed to. and the House adjourned at 5.20. In the evening Mr. Coates said that he had taken the opportunity to ap-

proacli the Minister and try to clear up the meaning contained in the Government amendment to the hardship clause. He thought the word “serious” could be eliminated from the clause without affecting it. He understood the Minister clearly to state that where land was alleged not to be suitable for subdivision the commission would take that into account. He wanted it to be understood that where, regarding mortgaged land, the equity was destroyed by taxation, the owner should have an opportunity of saying that it was a case of hardship. Again he understood the Minister to say that he was not likely to take any course regarding the hardship clause that might tie the hands of the commission. The Minister had been understood to say also that the hardship clause and amendment would meet the situation better than Mr. Waite’s amendment, also any positions raised, according to Mr. Forbes, would be met fairly by the hardship clause, as amended. “FAIR AND REASONABLE” The adjournment had been made, continued Mr. Coates, with the clear object, if possible, of cutting down the length of the debate. The House had decided that the super-tax apply to lands over £14,000 unimproved value and the Opposition had no objection to the imposition of incometax. Now came the question of what the commission would do in investigating cases of hardship. The Minister had met Mr. Coates frankly, and he understood him to say that the commission would consider hardship on any fair and reasonable grounds whatever. Mr. Coates said that he did not intend to carry out any further discussion, but he would want to put the position later 1 regarding the mortgaged lands. He would move that the mortgage exemption be increased to £IO,OOO as under the present law. Mr. Forbes said that the Government was willing to make fair and reasonable amendments, but these must not interfere with the purposes of the Bill, which were first revenue and second, closer settlement. The Government had to face its duty in putting the finances of the country on a sound basis. Regarding hardship, Mr. Forbes pointed out that it was the intention of the Government to try to see that the application of the clause did not have the effect of causing serious hardship. He felt sure the tribunal would look at the question in a fair and equitable light. He doubted the necessity of adding “fair and reasonable grounds” to the clause. However, he would add the words to tho clause if desired. Mr. Forbes was unwilling to alter •the wording that "the Commissioner of Taxes may in accordance with the report of the commission . . . refund the tax or part thereof” to the word “shall.” This would deprive the commissioner of discretionary powers He did not think the commissioner would take an unreasonable point of view. LABOUR’S GRIEVANCE The Leader of the Labour Party expressed regret that the Labour Party had not been invited to fall in with the other parties in making arrangements. The only way of doing thinfs now was to express the Labour view clause by clause as they came along. Mr. Holland thought the hardship clause needed rediscussion, especially if tabulated examples of the effect of the tax could be produced. Mr. Forbes explained that Mr. Coates had not seen him till shortly before resumption, and there had been no time to bring Labour in, much as he would have liked to. Mr. Coates rose and said that he hoped Mr. Forbes had not got -the idea that the Opposition agreed with the policy of the Bill. Mr. Fraser: Hasn’t the honourable gentleman made that tediously clear? Mr. Coates said that -the only course was for the Opposition to approach the Government. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Napier): You j were making a virtue of necessity. Here a point of order on procedure uas raised and Mr. Coates suggested abandoning the Standing Orders to permit discussion of the present position. Mr. W. L. Martin (Raglan): What we want to know is, if you will let the Bill go through. Mr. Coates: What’s that got to do with you? (Laughter.) Then the House proceeded to discuss the clauses, the Opposition amend* ments being withdrawn right and left in accordance with the promise of Mr. Coates. Clause six, dealing with mortgage .exemption reduction, was challenged i as a whole, but the challenge was negatived by 41 votes to 23. The Bill was committed with Government amendments, and the House rose at 10.45 till 0.30 next morning for the third reading of the Annual Taxing Bill, and four classes of esti- 1 mates.