PARLIAMENTARY.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1428, 12 September 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

Last Night’s Proceedings. Wellington, September 12, After ten o’clock lust night, Mr Stearns continued the debate by opposing the proposals, and twitting| Mr Montgomery and Mr Bryce for attacking the Government measures and then announcing they would vote for them. He held the same opinion as last year —that the country could not afford reductions in its revenue, and when free education had been granted, then the working classes could not, with justice, demand relief from taxation. He quite admitted that if further taxation were required, property should bear it. He always regarded realised properly as a reserve which might bo fallen back upon in case of a financial necessity. He could not understand the Government policy, inasmuch as while it had taken land fund last year to obviate the necessity for taxation it was this year, according to public works scheme taking a part of the land revenue, and making up the deficiency by a land tax ; nor could he understand on what principle the G overnment acted in continuing the subsidies from the consolidated fund, and then replenishing the consolicated fund by taxing land. He advised the Government to accept the amendment of the member for Geraldine. The Land Tax Bill had been pulled to pieces so much that there was nothing now to bring forward, and bo could only say ho agreed with every single objection which was urged against it. He objected to the exemptions up to £SOO and to non-taxation of improvements, and he mentioned instances in which exemptions would act unfairly. Ho ridiculed the unearned increment, and thought an income tax the fairest possible tas. lie condemned remitting

the grain duty, ■while retaining that on timber.

Mr Mosa said he had taken out figures from the financial statement which showed that, out of £1,940,000 contributed in the shape of taxation (o the revenue, only £130,000 was contributed by property; whereas in England, whore the State had not improved property by large public works, one twelfth of the total revenue was contributed by property. After several other speakers for and against Mr Wakefield’s motion was put and lost. Mr Ballance proceeded to reply. He confined himself to the objections raised against the principle of the Bill, leaving the objections fo the minor details for the committee. He confirmned the announced intention of some members to emasculate the Bill in committee, as unconstitutional, and said the Q-overnment would insist upon the beer tax. It was a recognised principle that nothing should be sooner taxed than alcoholic liquors, and as such , beer had a right to be taxed, more especially as a large consumption of it had decreased the revenue by reducing the consumption of English beer and spirits. The declining revenue on these articles must be compensated for, and if the House threw out the Bill the whole of the financial proposals of the Government would be upset and the money must be found elsewhere. As to the land fund, there was no clashing between himself and the Minister of of Public Works. The one estimate was made in view of the other and both estimates would be realised ; in proof of which assertion he went into particulars of the various estimates. In reply to the member for Akaroa (Mr Montgomery) he said he would like to hear of a definition of the word “property.” That was a difficult question. He admitted the difficulty of the non-improvement basis, but thought it a committee point, and ho might refer to the fact that it was the basis in Ireland at present. The object was to get at the men who bought property and did not improve it. As to the objection that poor men were the principal shareholders in joint-stock companies, ho did pot believe such was the case, but rather the opposite, As to the alternative of an income tax, the colony was not yet prepared to face it. Alterations in the tariff were proposed with the object of increasing the commerce of the colony by ridding the tariff of a number of items. The remission of the grain duty could not affect the farming interest, because we were an exporting country, and it was desirable to cultivate free trade.

The following is the division list on Mr E. Wakefield’s amendment on the motion for the second reading of the Land Tax Bill: Ayes.

Baigeut Manders Ballance McMimi Barton Montgomery Bryce M oss Bunny (teller) Murray De Lautour Nahi Hignau Pyke Feldwick "Reeves Fisher Rowe Fitzroy Sheehan George (teller) Sutton Green Swanson Grey Tawiti Hamlin Teschemaker Henry Hisloy Tole Hodgkinson Turnbull Joyce Wallace Keily Whitaker Macaudrew Wood Noes. Atkinson Cullen McLean bibbs Stevens (idler) Hursthouse Wakefield (teller) Pairs. For the Government. Gisborne I Woolcock. O’Korke I Against. Williams I Richardson. Wasou | The second reading then passed on the voices.