THE MEMBER FOR NAPIER

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 169, 19 August 1929, Page 6

THE MEMBER FOR NAPIER

AIi- W. E. Bamard, member for Napier, iu his apeecli during ihe Budget debate, did not iiidulge we ai-e glad to note, in the nonsenSe wliicli contends that primage duties are not passed on to the consumer. lactics of the kind he did not lower himself to endorse are insincere. Those who mamtain that Customs : duties , however styled, are not passed on do not, unless extremely : unsophistieated, believe their own i utterances, This indict-s several i member s of the Uliited Partv who on this subject corldescend to" futile "twittering" beeause for party reas^ns tbev thinli themselves ealfed upon to justifv Or to excuse the doubling of the primage duties. If this increased levy upon the consutner is necessary, then it had to be, but there is lieither rhyme hof reason i"i contending that the consumer is not taxed by tho doubling. In regard to ibcreased taxation affecting large landowners, who are to he made to pay income ta-x "or" land ta-x, whichever is the hiaher, iMr Barnard's summary may be considered as accurate. He s-ug-gested that tbe Government's action would not only be endorsed by bis side of the House, but more generally by the country as a whole. Referring to the plea that the Govemment was acting harshly in reducing the land mortgage Sxemption, the member for Napier made a shrewd hit. This plea is based upon the contention that in the majority of cases landowiiers have mqrtgaged properties to obtain moneys with which to buy more land,- and so add to the nroductivehess of the country. If this were generally true it would not affect the member for Napier's comment, which is that mortgagors heavily encumbered should get rid of sotne of their liabilitieS and eontent themselves with holdings more in accordance Yvith their available capital. But the contehtion that mortgages have been entered into for the puf chas© of fnore land, so that production may be increased, is. not generally true." Many of fchose holding large areas hold them speculatbely, hoping to sell at a profit, and preferably to sell to the Goverliment, which — and this applies to all Administrations — is accustomed to buy at rates that make the vendor the ehief beneficiary. The dutstanding illustrafcion of this is, of course, the soldier settlement "blunder," under which vendors of land t© the State werepaid in the aggregate over three millions more than the land was worth, but the comment applies generally to all pUrchasers by the State of private holdings during a long pei'iod of years. The position is such as to justify the generalisation that all purchases of land bv the State from private holders should be regarded with m6re 6r less suspici&n, RO matter which party is in powei*. When the State makes 6uch purchases it acts on the advice of its departmental officers. We raise RO questions^as to their integrity, but

all the results for many years justify doubt as to their ability. Tor example, every purehase under the soldier settlement disaster was made under departmental advice. In view of what followed, of the huge losses ultimately sustained by the State, what was the real value of that advice? What was the value of the advice under which, it must be assumed, the "typiste"

transaction was pushed thfough? All Administrations up till now— ancl we do-not feel Confident as to what is to happen now — have been weak, or worse, in regard to stimillating land settlement. Instead of relying upon a sound sclieme of roading and "feneing Crown lands and tlian placing tlie fenced and roaded areas on the markets, all Administrations have preferred tbe more showy, but costly, method of buying occilpied holdings, and in all cases — for we do not thiRk a single exception is permissible — the State has sulfered loss. And to-day there is much land held, not productively, but speculatively, in the hope that the State, will buy it for sub-division. We commend the meftiber for Napier on his clear statement in regal'd to the doubling of tlie priniag© duty, and bis keen clisappointment at the fact that the Govemment has decidecl upoR this step. This represents the general opinion of tlie country, which at the moment experiences grave contemjpt for ihe sliuffling which pretends to believe that prilnage duties cannct be passed GU to the consumer becaus© it is only 2 per cent. on all imports. Our total imports are rougblv hftv RiilliOnS (for 1§26 they tOtalM ^49,889, 568) and 2 per CeRt. ofl ftfty lliilliORs is a RiilliOR. The man who professes to believe that A milliofl taken throngh the Customs is not passed on, with at least two pl'ofits charged up on the million, can oilly be regarded as a lRarvel. |