GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1446, 4 October 1878, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[PEB PEESB AGENCY. J LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Thursday, October 3. ME BOBINSON’S PINE. Mr Robinson intimated his readiness to pay his fifty pounds fine forthwith, as_ he desired to exonerate himself as far as possible from the charge of contempt. He called upon Sir Dillon Bell to relate what occurred. Sir Dillon Bell said it was certain that no contempt had been intended by Mr Robinson. He regretted that ho was so unsuccessful in his endeavour to defend the cause entrusted to him. His absence yesterday was owing to a previous engagement. Mr Campbell gave notice to move tomorrow that the resolution passed in respect to the absence of Mr Robinson be rescinded. THIRD READINGS. The Rating Act Amendment Bill and the Putumahoo Site Bill were read a third time and passed. THE TEMPORARY POWERS BILL. This Bill was explained by Colonel Whitmore as being only intended to remove certain technical defects in the Counties Act. As the Bill had not been circulated the debate was adjourned. THE ELECTORAL BILL. Colonel Whitmore said this was a very important measure, intended to widen and simplify the franchise. The Maori franchise was not novel. Personally he would desire to abolish the special representation, and to put both races on an equality. This was now impossible. The Bill was only a reasonable compromise. The Maori representation would be more fully dealt with next session. The block vote of the Maoris was no more dangerous than the block vote of religious bodies, Freemasons, or licensed victuallers. The middle classes were less likely to judge fairly than either the upper or lower classes. He was not afraid of manhood suffrage. Mr Ngatata said the Maoris only wanted more members in the other House. They did not want to vote for European members, and did not understand this matter. Mr Waterhouse and Dr. Grace opposed the Bill strongly. Dr. Pollen moved the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow. PIRST READING. The Bank Holiday Bill, Oamaru Athemcum and Mechanics’ Institute Bill, were road a first time. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Thursday, October 3. The House met at 2 30. BOYS’ HIGH SCHOOL AT CHRISTCHURCH. Mr Montgomery gave notice with the view to getting a Bill brought in to provide for the establishment and maintenance of a Boys’ High School at Christchurch. ANNUAL BALL. Mr George asked without notice whether the House would adjourn at 5 30 to-morrow night, in order to give members an opportunity of attending the members’ annual ball. The Premier said the Government would not object. NATIVE LANDS BILL. Mr Sheehan announced that ho would move second reading of the Native Lands Bill on Tuesday next. land tax bill. On the motion that the report on the Land Tax Bill be agreed to, Mr Wakefield moved—“ That the Bill be recommitted.” He was not opposed to the principles of the Bill, but was desirous of seeing it emended by the elision of certain portions of the Bill which were opposed to its principles, as, for instance, the way in which pastoral tenants were to be taxed. The hon. gentleman argued at considerable length to show that the provision in the Rill with regard to pastoral leases was not introduced so much with a view to increasing the revenue as the extinction of a class. On the clause relating to native lands, he said the Native Minister in his desire to bo generous to the natives had forgotten to bo just to the Europeans. Ho strongly condemned the action of the Ministry in regard to those who held land on tenure from the natives.

Mr Stout said there must be some finality to their debates, and all the objections just then raised by the member for Q-eruldino had been fought over for hours already, and disposed of by the sense of the House. Ho maintained that the pastoral tenants were not taxed more than they could well afford to pay, and had the Land Tax Bill to be passed over again the tax would bo 30 or 40 per cent, higher than at present. It appeared to him that all that was intended by this opposition was to impose further taxation on all property so as to relieve the land owners from a tax which they are legitimately entitled to pay. Jle hoped the House, having seen what the intention was, would not allow the Bill to be recommitted, and another day wasted.

Mil]or Atkinson said it was a great public scandal for the Government to say that the leaseholders from the Crown were not paying a proper rent. This had been stated over and over again bv the Premier, who said that he and his colleagues would set matters right; and yet, although they had been three months in session, they had not made the slightest attempt to remedy the great wrong they alleged was in existence. In the interests of public morality the Ministry should take steps to remedy the great injustice, if they believed all they said about it. He maintained that the whole Bill was destitute of principle, was unfair and unpolitic. Mr Rees spoke of the injustice of the arrangement with regard to the ten years’ ext ension of the Canterbury leases, and said if he did not this session introduce a Bill to repeal clause 110, under which the injustice was perpetrated, he would do so next year, and so on every year until ho succeeded in removing such a glaring injustice to the people of the colony, as giving away the leases of runs for ten years. Mr Hislop said that although he voted against the granting of the leases last year, now that the interests had grown up on the strength of that Bill, he would oppose its repeal as a breach of faith. He hoped the Bill would go into committee again, so that it might bo amended, and made a model of taxation for all time, and not the glaring injustice it was now. Mr Stevens pointed out it was an error to endeavor to make out that any wrong was done last year, because the leases referred to would, without any action of the Government, be open to the public in 1882. He would support the recommittal of the Bill, in order to endeavor to do justice to persons holding leases under the Government as well as those holding them from the natives. Mr Saunders protested strongly against the gross injustice perpetrated upon Canterbury runholders, which was a blur upon the Bill and a discredit to any Government who would introduce anything so unfair. He thought the Canterbury runholders were unwise in sitting in judgment on their own cases, when they got their leases extended for ten years. Whether the terms obtained were good or not, was beside the question. It had been said that injustice had been done to the people by a certain class in the past. But was it to be said that any Government would come down with vindictive legislation by retaliating upon a certain class for some wrong done to another class in the post. Ho hoped the Bill would be recommitted and amended so as to make it fair and just. Mr McLean strongly condemned the misrepresentation constantly being made by the Premier and others in regard to the Canterbury leases. The people had been deliberately deceived in this matter. Why not have told the people that the public could any day purchase any or all of these runs without the Government being called to pav a penny of indemnity to the squatters ? Why not tell the people that in a few years the Government could declare all these runs open to the public ? Mr BaIiLANCE expressed his astonishment at members objecting now, who raised no objection when in committee. He defended the tax as a just and national one, intended to recover to the treasury some of the money expended on public works and roads, which conferred benefit on every tenant of the Crown. (Expressions of dissent from Canterbury members.) It would be a great mistake to exempt the large area of land occupied by Crown tenants because the Bill was a Land Tax Bill. The hon. gentleman complained that Mr Wakefield’s objection had not been taken when the Bill was in committee.

Mr Wakefield said he did not move because ho had the promise of the AttorneyGeneral that another opportunity would bo afforded for discussing the whole qu*stion of landlord and tenant.

Mr Ballancb said he remembered the circumstance referred to, but there was no such promise. Mr Hisloi* said he had amendments prepared on the matter, and would have moved them had not the Attorney-General promised there should be an opportunity of discussing the whole matter over again. Mr Ballance went on to say that he was unaware of any such promise. [Loud cries of “Oh ! oh! ” amongst Canterbury members.] Well, if the runholders and their friends thought they had such good claims, and thought they could rule the House, let them go to the country. He asked why the Opposition had not shown their hand before. Mr Bowen considered the action of the Attorney-General and Treasurer rather discreditable in saying there had been no understanding, when half a dozen gentlemen, including a Government supporter, got up and said there had been such an understanding. Mr Wason protested against the misrepresentation of the Colonial Treasurer in saying that this was a question between the runholders of the House and the country and the Government, when the absolute fact was that probably, with one exception, there was not a runholder in the House, either directly or indirectly, interested in the question. Mr Gisbobne gave his version regarding the misunderstanding, to show that he understood from the Attorney-General that the Government would introduce a clause which would raise the whole question of the value of pastoral land. He therefore thought as so many members were debarred through this misunderstanding from raising objections against the clause, the Government ought in justice to allow the Bill to be recommitted. Mr Muebay said his impression was the the same as that of the hon. member for Totara. He supported the recommittal. Mr Rolleston said in regard to the debate that he must say in the words of the Premier that his sentiments of truth were exshocked. He never saw the like of a Government resisting an allegation made by a member, after members of their own side of the House coming forward and saying that an honorable understanding existed. Ho had been deprived at a public meeting of an opportunity of giving his views regarding the case of the Canterbury runholders. He would take that opportunity now. First of all he would say that the Premier went through the country deliberately misrepresenting the case of the Canterbury runholders. The hon. gentleman went at some length into the provisions of the Act to show that the Premier had misrepresented the nature of the tenure of the runholders. Ho asked why the Government opposed the recommittal They surely were not afraid, with their; majority, to recommit the Bill, and thus have their way by what was a surprise. The House then divided on Mr Wakefield’s amendment to recommit the Bill, and the amendment was lost by 31 against 32. Messrs Mueeay and Montqomeey formally announced that they could not vote for the third reading of a Bill so unjust and impolitic in some of its provisions. The debate was interrupted at 6.30.

EVENING SITTING The House resumed at. 7-30. LAND TAX BILL,

Mr Sutton made a brief protest against the Bill becoming law, as being in direct violation of all the promises of the Premier. Mr Wakefield made a long and vigorous speech, opposing the third reading of the Bill, in the course of which he referred to the events of last session and the causes which induced him and other members to place the Premier in power. He had confidence in the the Premier then. He had confidence in him still, if he were allowed to carry out his own policy. But the present policy was not his, but that of the Attorney-General and Treasurer, whom ho called the raw recruits of the Ministry. Ho extremely regretted the loss of the late Treasurer from the Ministry, believing that if ho (through whom the Premier got into power) had still been in the Ministry, no such pernicious policy would have been brought down. If anything would justify members in obstructing by every possible Parliamentary means, it would be this measure.

Mr McMinn said it required all his faith in the Premier and his colleagues to induce him to vote for the third reading of the Bill, and ho only did so because of the main principle of the Bill, though it contained provision? opposed to all that was just or fair.

Mr Fitzroy said they had been tricked by the Attorney-General and Treasurer into allowing the objectionable clauses to go through committee. They trusted the word of the Attorney-General and were deceived. The position was most humiliating. He would oppose the third reading. Mr Stout gave an absolute denial that he gave any promise or used any words that could be so construed, that pastoral tenants would not bo taxed. The promise he did make was that an objection having been raised that if a runholder paid his tax for the year the land could be sold the day after, he promised to bring down a new clause which would remedy the difficulty, and a clause drafted by himself was brought down which met the difficulty. He declined to reply to the speech of Mr Wakefield, because all knew why he was in Opposition, But it was better that any man who could so suddenly change his views should be in Opposition. Ho hoped the House would acquit him of having told any untruth in the matter.

Mr Woodcock would only support the third reading in the hope that the monstrous injustice which it contained would be rectified in another place, and that an amendment would be there made, and allowed to remain when brought back to this House. Mr Barton defended the Bill on the ground that it changed the incidence of taxation, and therefore was the fulfilment of the Premier’s pledges, by making the runholders, who had so long escaped taxation, now contribute something like a fair share towards the burdens of the country. Mr Gibbs opposed the third reading.

Dr. Hodgkinson would vote for the third reading, although there were two great blots in the Bill.

Mr Bowen opposed the third reading. The tax would entail a maximum of cost in collection, with a minimum of revenue, besides being objectionable as a class tax. Mr Hunter had supported the second reading, and would support the third, because he approved of a land tax, though he had hoped the Bill would have been recommitted.

Mr Whitakee had hoped the Bill would have been greatly amended, but in order to test the principle of the land tax, which he approved, he would support the third reading. Major Atkinson considered the land tax a thoroughly unsound tax, and (would oppose the third reading. Land in a new country was not the same as in an old country. Mr Wason opposed the third reading. Not a word in favor of the Bill had come from the Government side of the House. He regretted that the Government had not been compelled to go to the country before their measures were passed. Mr Giseoenb defended the Bill as going far towards equalising taxation, though not so far ns he could wish. He supported the third reading. The Peemiee defended himseif from the charges that he had disgracefully stumped the country, and deceived the people of the colony regarding the Canterbury lands. It was his duty to make himself acquainted with all parts of the colony and its public men, and as far as the Canterbury lands were concerned, he said nothing but the truth, and what he dared to repeat again in Canterbury, and discuss the matter with the late Superintendent of Canterbury, who maligned him. If he did not like Canterbury let him select Wellington. The Premier proceeded at considerable length in defence of the Justice and wisdom of the proposals in the Bill, and said that even in England such a change was coming over public minds that in a few years a similar reform would be accomplished. The debate is still proceeding.