WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 31 August 1917, Page 5

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

THE FINANCE BILL. COMPULSORY LENDING. (Special Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 29. The Finance Bill, as everyone will be able to judge from the summaries of its contents, is quite as far reaching and drastic as Sir Joseph Ward and his colkagues promised it would be The increases in the income tax and the land tax, whatever the Government's critics on one side or the other say to the contrary, are very real and substantial, and no legitimate source of revenue has been overlooked. The provisions for compelling individuals that have neglected their obvious duty to make "fair contributions" to the war loan introduce a new feature into the Dominion's finance but they are not without parallel in other countries and they are assured of the cordial' support of a large majority of the House.

WILLY-NILLY. The Minister hopes that the mere appearance of these provisions on the Statute Book will be sufficient to awaken the "absent-minded capitalists •of all degrees to a proper sense of their obligations, but if it should failt to do so he will not hesitate to apply the necessary pressure. As an example of the operation of the provisions he quoted last night the case of a taxpayer whose assessable income in the financial year ended March 31 last was £9377 and who paid in land and income tax £1963. If this lucky individual had not voluntarily made "a fair contribution" to the loans, he would be required to lend the Government £2954 for the loan of 1916 and £5899 for the loan of 1917. It is understood there are a good many capitalists liable to this compulsion, but the Minister hopes there will be no need to apply the pressure Parliament is being asked to authorise. . DEMAND FOR AN ELECTION. In moving yesterday for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Act of last session by which the life of the present Parliament was prolonged till the end of next year Mr. George Witty the member for Ricearton, launched a scathing indietment against the National Government and was warmly supported by Dr. Thacker, the member for Christchurch East. It was easy, of course, for the two Canterbury members to quote many instances in which the Government had fallen far short of the expectations of its more sanguine friends. There were bungles in the Defence Department, there was the neglect of the cost of living problem, there were the War Regulations, there -was the treatment of the Efficiency Board and there were a score of other things. But the other dissatisfied members held their peace and Sir James Allen rose to reply without realising the full force of the protest. MINISTERS UNDISMAYED. The Minister of 'Defence* said he could not take the two members who had spoken seriously. He thought they were "out for a bit of-sport" and he did not wish to spoil their fun. But having delivered himself of this piece of pleasantry he proceeded to deal with Mr. Witty's charges very seriously. He denied the existence of favouritism or waste or inefficiency in his Department and challenged the member for Ricearton and his friends to produce one single instance of -this sort of thing. Mr. Massey, who spoke at a later stage of the proceedings, said the Government had put up with these pinpricks long enough and they would have to cense. If the House wanted a general election it would have it. He was fully prepared and would have no fear of the result. THE OUTLOOK. Though Mr. Massey and Sir James Allen both started out by speaking lightly of Mr. Witty's attack, upon the Government, punctuated, as it was, by frequent "hear, hears," they assumed an emphatically serious tone as they proceeded. Ministers are not unaware the disssatisfaction with much of the Government's admnistration which prevails among a considerable section of the House and on personal grounds they would rather welcome an appeal to the constituencies, but the party truce makes a general election at the present juncture almost impossible and if it could take place it would result only in the maintenance of the status quo. The Liberal members complain that Sir Joseph Ward is observing truce over scrupulously, while the leaders on the other side are placing a somewhat different interpretation on their obligations, but this view probably is due to the fact that the progressive party always has most to lose in every compromise.