GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1420, 3 September 1878, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[PHB PRESS AGENCY. J HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Monday, Septembee 2. The House met at 2.30. IMPREST SUPPLY. On the motion of Mr Ballance for passing the Imprest Supply Bill, No. 3, for £250,000. Mr Thomson wanted to know whether this was tho last Imprest Supply Bill. This was becoming serious, for it appeared as if tho control of the purse was passing out of the hands of tho House altogether, and something should be done to stop it. Mr Ballance said it was not improbable there would bo another Imprest Bill. The course adopted was that which had been pursued for years. Ho might point out that they were spending at tho rate of £66,000 per day. In reply to questions, Mr Ballance said tho Public Revenues Bill would bo introduced in a few days, ns the Bill was nearly ready, and tho Public Works estimate would bo ready by tho time tho House resumed. Tho Imprest Bill, being matter of urgency, was advanced through all its stages, and passed. DISQUALIFICATION BILL, NO. 2. In committee on subsection one, clause six, of this Bill. Mr Tubnbull moved tho insertion of words which would exempt tho AttorneyGeneral, as well as any member accepting tho Judge of the Supremo Court, or of AgentGeneral, The House divided on this, tho result being that tho Attorney-General was exempted by 47 against 17. Mr Barton then moved tho insertion of the words “or Solicitor-General,” This was negatived. The debate was interrupted at 5'30. EVENING SITTING, On the House resuming at 7.30 p.m., progress was reported on the Disqualification Bill. AD.TOUENED DEBATE ON THE LAND TAX BILL Mr Wakefield said ho would criticise, with considerable frankness, all the financial proposals of the Government. It appeared to him that tho speech of the Treasurer was one long apology for his Bill, and one part of his speech was inconsistent with another. The hon. gentleman first deprecated tho objections raised by tho landowners, and later on he informed tho House that the proposal of a land tax had received tho approval, of the landowners themselves. Ho ventured to say that tho Land Tax Bill, as now before tho House, was purely an after-thought, certainly not more than a month or two old. This was not tho policy first proposed by the Treasurer at Marton. That was a scheme to tax land at so much per acre, but no freehold until it camo up to 320 acres, was to bo taxed at all. That was less than three months ago. What they were giving noiv was the policy of the Attorney-General at Dunedin. No wonder tho hon. gentleman apologised. Tho policy was not his, and his heart was not in it. Ho must protest against this cramming down their throats new kinds of taxes which had never been proved or even tested. The hon. gentleman quoted in support of bis arguments a number of foreign authorities, but it would bo as sensible to take the opinions of these men on our affairs as to take opinions of our own Legislature on English affairs. Taking the Treasurer’s policy as a whole he considered it

unsatisfactory, calculated to create class distinction, and oppress local industries. As to the exemption of land of the “ unimproved value” of live hundred pounds he considered the term an absurdity. The definition was nought. He objected to the exemption of any land in the colony. They were told the land tax was modelled on the principle of the income tax at Home. But was it not a constant grievance at Homo that the income tax was a class tax, not one which affected all ? Yet the hon. gentleman said this was not a class tax. He was struck with astonishment at the proposal of fixing the minimum price of land at £1 per acre. Why! to the settlers north of Auckland such a tax would prove a burdensome rent in itself. This was proof of its crudeness. Then, who ever heard of such a tax as that of making tenants of the Crown pay a tax to the Crown ? The Canterbury licensees, who had no tenure whatever, because any person could buy the land over their heads, were placed in the same position as the licensees of Otago, who had a tenure. The hon. gentleman ridiculed the alterations of the tariff as like keeping a chandler’s shop and earning nothing after the year. The beer tax was singularly unfair. It all fell on the brewer. His beer was not only taxed, but he had to keep an extra clerk to help to collect the tax, besides the employment of a“policeman, who should by rights bo doing something else. Ho opposed the tax on Joint Stock Companies. If the beer tax was calculated to make people sober, the other would make many tight. It could have no other effect than driving away foreign capital from the country, now lent on local enterprises, as well as falling on the savings of the people invested in the same way. Yet those who lent money by tons tf thousands on mortgages were allowed to go free. As to reducing the tax on sugar, why not take it off altogether ? The same remark would apply to the tea duty. Better to strike all tho tax olf one article, than complicate matters by reducing tho tax on two or three things. Then, howsilly was tho tax on sparkling wines. Why not tax all wines ? Then as to the boot tax. The Treasurer quoted an invoice to show that the result of the specific tax was the same as tho result of tho ad valorem duty. What was the meaning of such an argument ns that ? There could ho no question that tho boot tax would fall heavily upon the working man. Altogether, it appeared as if tho poor working man w-as going to catch it all round. He could only characterise the Government policy as harassing and troublesome and without any result to warrant it. They wore told that tho policy of tho Government was free trade, and they struck off tho little bit of proteclion tho farmer enjoyed in the shape of a tax on flour, while that on timber was left. That seemed to him as if tho Treasurer had the idea of securing two or three Northern votes. But why these taxes at all ? They were not in want of money. Why! if the hon, member for Egmont had last session brought down such a policy, with the opposition then in existence, his life would hardly have been safe. The hon. gentleman highly approved tho Public Works policy, but considered that of tho Treasurer as unworthy of the rest of tho Ministry. Ho condemned the mode in which Government took away the land fund and then subsidised focal bodies, and then took away from them for charitable aid. It would bo much simpler in the first instance to' give away less in subsidies, instead of increasing tho taxes. The colony was now, for tho first time for many years, in a position to adjust its finance without any fresh taxation. Let them abandon subsidies, and they could place their finances on a good basis. Ho did not make these remarks out of hostility to the Government as a whole, because last session ho wont to considerable trouble to place the present Government in power. Ho di£ so too at considerable personal sacrifice, and ho was only anxious to sec them a united Government. He would therefore move tho insertion of the following words—“ That while this House is of opinion that when tho necessities of Iho colony require further i'eyenqe, direct taxation should be vcsqrted to, and it is of opinion that such taxation should not be adopted while subsidies in aid are paid from the consolidated fund.” Mr MoLhan followed in tho same a! rain, saying that if the Government would withdraw- their three taxing Bills, tho Opposition would help them to pass the Electoral Bill and tho Estimates, and they could then have another year to prepare a policy which would only offend a few classes instead of the whole population, as at present. Tho hon. gentleman criticised the mode of obtaining a balance adopted by tho Treasurer, who, ho said, took away from loans, and placed it with ordinary revenue, so as to create a surplus. Ho also criticised the calculations with regard to revenue from land fund, especially with regard to the Waimato plains. Tho lion, gentleman took the Government to task for not appointing Sir Julius Vogel ono iwuu

agents, especially after what ho had done in regard to tho Inscription of Stock Act, and all ho was doing daily by writing the colony up and keeping it constantly before the British public. Millions of money that had lately been invested in the colony would not have been so invested had it not been for that gentleman’s exertions. In criticising tho estimates, the hon, gentleman said ho had discovered an error of £25,000, and instead of the surplus put down of £68,000, it was only £43,000. So far as he could make out, tho Treasurer would have to realise a million and a quarter from the land fund in order to pay subsidies, that is if the land revenue was not to go to ordinary revenue, but be expended on public works. He feared that Government was not in the sound position they led tho colony (o believe, and it would bo better for them to admit at once how they really stood, instead of resorting to an electioneering and twopenny-halfpenny policy. He condemned tho meddling with the tariff, and tho alteration in tho ad valorem duties, because they could not show a single article taken out of tho ad valorem list upon which tho Customs could be defrauded. Ho could not see in what way tho poor man was benefited by tho change from ad valorem to specific duties, and instanced several articles largely consumed by tho working man that w'ero much more heavily taxed than heretofore. Why was the tax on grain removed while that on timber was retained ? New Zealand should bo treated as a whole. Tho hon. gentleman was continuing adversely criticising the mode in which wines were dealt with. Those who consumed sparkling wines also were consumers of colonial wines.