GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Kumara Times, Issue 275, 22 August 1877, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

[press agency.]

Wellington, August 21. In the House to-day, Replying to questions, Ministers said Road Boards would be supplied with New Zealand Gazettes.—The Government were making inquiries regarding the means of preventing illegitimate speculation in Native lands till further legislation oh the whole subject took place. Imprest Supply Bill No. 2, for £250,000, was received by Governor’s message. Sir George Grey, Reader Wood, Gisborne, Stafford, and others, objected to the Bill being pushed through all the stages without notice. Major Atkinson regretted he had not given notice. Mr Ormond said the money was wanted to meet public works contracts. The Bill passed through all the stages after an amendment by Mr Rees,

that the third reading be postponed till to-morrow, was negatived on the voices. The resumed debate on Sir George Grey’s Incidence Taxation Amendment was renewed on going into Supply. Mr Murray thought the time had come when property should be taxed, and financial legerdemain with Treasury Bills and Land Revenue cease. The deficiency caused by railways should be made up by a tax on property, which had enormously benefited by their; construction. He moved that the word “immediately” be struck oat Sir George Grey’s amendment, and the words “next session” inserted in lieu there of. A long discussion on point of order ensued, and Mr Murray’s amendment was ruled regular. Mr Reid defended the conduct of the Government, and urged a prudent, careful, and temperate consideiation of the great question involved in the proposals, He replied at length -to the speeches of Messrs Stout, Macandrew, and Sir George Grey, declaring the latter lamentably deficient in sound policy. The debate was interrupted at 5.30. August 23. On resuming the Hon. D. Reid said: It would be unfair to impose a harvest tax on large lands, remote from public works; such tax would probably disappoint taxation, as a source of revenue. A land tax should be on valuation. The Government propose carefully to reconsider the whole fiscal policy of the country daring the recess. Sm G. Grey said that he had omitted, in his previous speech, to allude to education, but he must allnde to it He had a fair scheme to propose and condemned the Government proposals as tyrannical, and despotic, making the poor pay for the rich. He contended for equal rights for all classes, in education, land taxation, representation, everything. , Mr Thomson-strongly criticised and condemned the Fnancial Statement Mr Gisborne condemned the Financial Statement and the policy of the Government. He Government had better destroy the land revenue localisation altogether, than maintain such a scheme as that proposed. He strongly supported a property andan income tax, but thought it impossibleto impose them this year. Ho preferred Sir G. Grey’s proposals to, those of Government, as being consistent with hia previous action, while the Government were simply trimming their wmls. Mr Stafford replied to Mr Montgomery’s attack oh the accuracy of the Financial Statement. He that it was accurate, dear, and Eleven years ago he had proposed a property and an income taxbut then met with little favor. He was glad to see now that the House were only divided as to whether they should impose such a tax next year or this year. It was impossible to do the latter. He condemned the Government proposals regarding the Land Fund. Canterbury would rather give up her land revenue than submit to direct taxation. He opposed the removal of the sugar duty as sugar was largely used by brewers and natives. Mr Travers objected to either a pro-’ perty or an income tax, till all other sources of revenue had been exhausted. Of the two, the latter was preferable. He urged the adding of the floating debt to the permanent debt so as to save interest. Public works should be extended not curtailed. He urged the selling of the railways to private companies to complete and work. There would be no difficulty in doing that in London. He had no objection to an income tax as a change of income, but would not agree to it as an additional tax while the land fund was not colonial revenue. He suggested duties on colonial beer and salt, an increase of a half-penny on sugar, and a deduction of duty on clothing- Ho objected to an acreage tax, Mr Johnston warmly opposed either an income or a property tax, which would deter the introduction of foreign capital, so as to check the development of our resources and reduce wages. Ho denied that the present taxation on necessaries, which did not exceed one half-penny per head, pressed heavily on the working classes. A property tax would do so more heavily by reducing wages. He objected to repeal duties which encouraged local industries. Bather than impose additional taxation, it would be better to withdraw subsidies from local bodies, and take a larger portion of the country land fund in aid of colonial revenue. Mr Ballance moved the adjournment of the debate and the House rose at 12-25.