GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2621, 31 August 1882, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM. J HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, August 30. The House met at noon. PETITION. Mr Levin presented a petition from the ezeontor of Rhodes’ estate, protesting against the passing of Rhodes’ Estate Bill, as an injustice would be done to the parties interested, and requesting to bo heard by counsel. He moved that the prayer of the petitioner be granted. Mr Seddon opposed the motion, and moved that it be referred to a Select Committee. The motion for hearing counsel on Friday at the bar of the House was put and carried. ALLEGED OBSTBUOTION. Mr Sheehan took exception to a para graph in the morning paper stating that the Opposition had stonewalled the motion for going into supply. Mr Moss stated the papers throughout the colony had made most unfair attacks on the Opposition. The Hon. Major Atkinson stated there was no obstruction on the part of the Opposition last night j on the contrary, the amendments in supply were made by Government supporters. The matter then dropped. OEAKEI NATIVE RESERVES BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. The House adjourned at 1.15 p.tn, AFTERNOON SITTING. The House resumed at 2.30. QUESTIONS, Replying to Mr C. J. Johnston, The Hon. Mr Bbtcb said the Government did intend to take steps at an early date for improving and remodelling the volunteer force. Replying to Major Te Wheoro, The Hon. Mr Bbyce said the Government would look into the necessity for the appointment of a permanent doctor for the Waikato Natives. Replying to Mr Moss. The Hon. Major Atkinson said that during the recess the Government would see what could be done towards making provision for the inspection of sea-going vessels. OBOWN AND NATIVE LANDS RATING BILL The Hon. Major Atkinson moved (he second reading of the Grown and Native Land* Rating Bill, The principle of the Bill was that the lands should maintain the roads. The Bill was in most reipeoti similar to a Bill of the same name introduced last session.

Mr Montgomery pointed out that the Native land might not be leased or sold for twenty years, and during the whole of that time the Government would be paying the rates. In that way the whole value ef the land might be swallowed np, Mr Tomoana objected to the Bill, contending that the Native lands should not bs rated in the meantime at all events.

Mr Tawhai also epoke in opposition to the Bill.

Mr DhLautoub objected to the rating of the Native lands, as the Natives would know nothing about what was paid by the Treasurer, The purchaser of these lands would say to the seller, We shall give you so much money duo to the Treasurer for rates. It was a fallacy to say these lands paid no rates, for as a matter of fact they paid 10 per cent, on the sale as a contribution to the Grown. In committee he hoped provision would be made, at all events, to let the Native owners know what sums were accumulating against their lands.

Mr Macandhbw said last year they had days and days discussion on this proposal, and now it was about to pass almost without discussion. He quoted from the Bill itself to show that it was in many respects unintelligible, The practical effect of the Bill was to enable the North Island Boards to be endowed at the expense of the colony. Before the third reading of the Bill ha asked new members to peruse the debate of last session. He protested ogainst measures of this importance being rushed through the last days of the session. Even Government supporters last year denounced it as a system of jugglery. It would no doubt be passed, but it would be indebted for its passage to the ignorance of new members. Mr W. O. Buchanan pointed out that in the South they had Grown lands, but in the North the bulk of the land was held by the Natives.

Mr HxmSTHOTJSB said that to New Zealand generally the Bill would be of far more use than the subsidy system. That system worked most unfairly. This proposal would equalise that inequality. The great cause of the poor counties was the large tracts of waste land. With power to rate these the difficulty would, in a great measure, be obviated.

Sir John Hall dissented from the doctrines laid down by Mr Maoandrew. The South Island would receive largely under this Bill. Apart from that, he contended that the Bill was a simple act of justice. In the North Island roads had to be made through Native lands, from which no rates were got at all. These lands would be improved by the roads, and it was only fair that they should contribute towards their maintenance. The want of discussions of last year rendered further discussions unnecessary. It was their duty to impress on the Native members that if they were allowed to assist in imposing taxes on Europeans, they were equally liable to be taxed themselves. Speaking as a South Island man, he knew of no proposal that would be hailed with more satisfaction as a simple act of justice. Mr Oad si A*’ spoke in support of the Bill, and quoted statistics from his district to show how unfairly the present system operated. Mr Holmes opposed the Bill. He argued that before many years passed the Bill would be repealed, and the accumulated rates would be made a charge on consolidated revenue. It was nothing short of an attempt to gain money by false pretences. Mr Fish admitted there was a good prin oiple in the Bill. He could see no reason why Native lands should not be rated. It had been argued that the rates would eat up the fee simple of the land. If these lands were worth 20s per acre now, when opened up by railway they would be worth a great deal more. In the case of citirs he concluded that public property such as poet offices, &c., should be taxed, and that itself would bo a benefit to the towns.

Mr Stevens also supported tho principle of the Bill so far as Crown lands were concerned. It was, however, manifestly unfair to compel Maoris to pay rates when they had no voice in the administration of the local bodies. Interrupted by the 5 30 adjournment. EVENING BITTING, The House resumed at 7.30, and the debate was continued. Mr M. W. Qbbkn spoke in support of the Bill. Mr TaiabOA objected to the Bill, and moved, as an amendment, that tho Bill be read that day six months. Mr Moss argued that it would bo wrong to tax the Natives unless they had a voice in the election of the taxing bodies, the County Counoila, Sir Geobqb Qbbt thought it manifestly unjust that a Bill of this should have been brought in at such a late period. It was taxation proposed under new auspices, and care should have been taken that the persons on whom the burden was to be imposed should be represented by the taxing body. They bad been told that the two races were to be placed on an equality. What were the facts of the ease ? Borne time ago the Maoris askod to be heard at the bar of the House, and were refused. To-day a wealthy European made a similar request, and it was at once granted. This Bill placed all the power in the hands of the European, and left nothing whatever to the Maori. He would oppose such a manifest injustice. 'The question was put that the Bill be read a second time. Tho motion carried, and the Bill was ordered to be committed to-morrow. HATING BILL. The Hon, Major Atkinson moved the second reading of the Bating Bill. The question involved was as to whether property was to be rated on the capital value or on the annual value, and as to whether the valuation should be made by the local bodies or by the Governmen'As regards local valuation it must be within the knowledge of all that a wide diversity exists between the valuations struck in different countries. In America the valuations for the property tax was made by local valuators, but then a Board of equalisers were appointed

to go about and make a uniformity in the various valuations. In that case it appeared to him that it would be bettor to have the valuation all made by a general valuation, and thia Bill proposed to act on that principle. If the local bodies were not satisfied with the valuation made ia that way power was given to them to make a valuation for their own purposes and reject the general valnation. Altogether, if they valued in the future ca the capital value, then the value* tion would be a raving of at least £IO,OOO. As he had said, however, if they were not satisfied, then they might make a valuation of their own, aud the great advantage of this system was that the valuation would b* uniform. Of the 202 replies that had been received from the local bodies, there were 123 approvals of the principles of the Bill, sixty partial approvals, leaving only nineteen disapprovals. Mr Bathqatb complained that these policy Bills had not been brought down at a. much earlier period of the session. The principle of the Bill was completely antagonistic to that of the Imperial Parliament, where the valuation had been an institution for the last forty years. In England tbo valuator was chosen by the local bodies, and then the valuation rolls formed the basis of all taxation. That appeared to him to bo founded on common sense. Here tbo proposal was altogether opposite. He objected strongly to the valuations being let by tender. What was wanted was a man of standing and known probity. Such an one was not likely to be obtained in the perecna of the lowest tenderer. One had not only to see that he was fairly assessed, but he hod a right to see that his neighbor was fairly taxed. Here the disposition was in the direction of secrecy, to keep everyone from knowing anything about any other valuation but his own. The permissive clause, enabling local bodies to accept the general valuation or not, would be fatal to both economy and uniformity. The tendency of the measure was in the direction of centralisation, and would prove to be an invasion of their municipal righto and privileges. Political economists told them that political malversations carried in them the seeds of their own punishment. On that principle he would only be too glad to see this Bill pass, as it would alienate from the present despotic centralising government the confidence and respect of the local bodies.

Mr Moss scouted the ides of valuations being equalised by the fact of their being gent to Wellington. As a matter of fact these valuations would be made by persons resident in the localities, and sent to Weilington. Such being the case, the idea of uniformity was mere nonsense. He hoped this last remnant of local Government, the power to make their own valuations, would not bo lost to them.

Mr W. 0. Buchan ait spoke in support of the Bill.

Mr Joyce also spoke in support of the Bill. He thought the person making the valuation was altogether immaterial so long as the valuation was open to public criticism.

Mr Johnston moved the adjournment of the debate.

Mr Montgomery opposed the adjournment. The Bill proposed to taks away from the local bodies th.>t self-reliance which was of importance to local government for ths purpose of fair valuation. It was requisite that the valuator should have s ime knowledge of both the districts and the properties. Publicity cf valuation was to his mind an absolute necessity, and the Bill made no provision for such.

Mr Fish supported the adjournment. He conld not see Che evils in the Bill which bad presented themselves to others. In large cities advantage would be taken of the permissive clause. After discussion the motion was withdrawn and the Bill resd a second time. The House rose at one o’clock.