GOLD DUTY ABOLITION BILL.

Kumara Times, Issue 594, 23 August 1878, Page 2

GOLD DUTY ABOLITION BILL.

At the evening sitting in the Bouse of Representatives, on the 15th inst., Mr Seymour Thorne George, ini mov-* ; ing the second' reading of the Gold Duty Abolition Bill, said he considered the duty small, as it was essentially a class tax, and most unjust, inasmuch as the gold miner was exceptionally taxed as compared with other classes! Besides gold duty the miner had to pay extra if he took out a lease or built a battery, as well as his miner’s right fee. Often the gold tax, and others, represented the profits on mining undertakings. It was especially unfair; when it was xemembered that Government had announced in the Financial Statement that still another tax was to be placed upon Joint Stock Companies, that is a tax for the privilege of commencing to mine, and a tax upon any profits the miner might make. The Hon W. Gisborne seconded; He opposed the tax on the ground of political economy, that it was inadvisable to put a tax on any of the industrial exports of the Colony. , The cheaper they could produce gold the inore they could get in exchange fur it. The time had passed when exceptional charges were entailed upon Government by new mining communities starting into existence. . At. present they had become settled down, and were now staple communities, and therefore required no more special expenditure than any other amongst the peop'e of the Colony. Still, he thought, the tax might be made permissive, so that if any particular mining community did not wish to aUjlish the tax they might retain it. The Hon R Stout said this was asking the HduSp. to Vote away the funds • uflucilities. He, looked at it more in the light of a royalty than, a tax.* Of f course, it rested with the Counties wbafc - action should-be taken. : He : tho'ught A< olau e might he introduced in the Bill, 1 iwhen in Committee, making it optional* -'■/if Utl

'with the Conn ties whet) er they abolished the tax or not.

'Mr Mantlets would oppose tlie Bill, inasmuch as it was shown that Counties were going to recoup themselves if they Abolished this tax. There could be no doubt, however, that the tax was unjust and unfair. 1 Messrs Joyce and Brown supported theßill.

Mr Pyke would support the Bill if lie felt certain that the miner would got any ‘benefit from the abolition at all, but he would not. It would only 'be the companies and the Banks who would rekp the benefit of abolishing the tax. They must hear this in mind, that a compact had been made between ’Government and Counties in this matten, and it this tax was abolished a tax Would hate to He imposed on mining machinery. It was manifestly better to taX productive capital than unproductive. Practically he maintained that the gold deity was already abolished,and the tax under consideration Was ■ merely imposed to reach a class Who Could not be reached in any other way. He asked his own constituents if,they., wished tlie tax removed, but ihey- were perfectly apathetic over the matter; It was said that wool was not taxed,-but the : wool-grower would be ’quite satisfied to pay a tax on wool provided his property remained un-taxed,-as with the miner. hr ~Mr Barff stfbrigly supported the. Bill, ftnd argued at some length to show the injustice of this special tax. T VSIr supported . the Bill. Bfe;pdittt‘ed orft whht a’great deal gold mining had done for tlie Colony as a therefore that it was to the interest of the Colony to foster so beneficial an industry. -Mi- Rowe asked how miners were to be tUade to Contribute to the cost of maintaining roads in mining districts if the tax were’abolished ? The roads were made for and xised by the miners, and Phe duty on gold was the Only thing they had to depend Upon for public, .woyks of the district in which he Came from ; in fact, without these roada,>the quartz mines would be Bhut.upj, and the industry would cease. He ui'dypd that the Bill be . read that day six mouths.

-Mr Saunders opposed the. Bill, If they aboli died the tax, they must impose another, which in all probability would entail a cost of 40 of 50 per cent. Wool lection. Mr Do Lautonr thought the aim of the ;> ]Elojige ought to be to dispecialise the.. mining interest. Miners should be-placed on precisely the same footing asfotlfef class, or trade, of calling in the- Colgny. It was the constant efforts of members in endeavouring, to obtain special privileges for miners, that excited the jealousy of people others than miners. , Mr George hatting replied} Mr;Whitaker pointed out that when the duty Was imposed it was laid down in the Bating Act that mining machinery and other kinds of plant were exempt, and if the doty were now abolished, and miners were to be rated, then the Bating Act would require to be amended.

A division was taken, and the Bill thrown ' out by 35 to 34. Mr Pyke voted for the Bill.