PARLIAMENT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 21, 23 June 1885, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FINANCIAL STATEMENT. (UNITED PRKBS ASSOCIATION.) Wellington, Saturday. DIRECT TAXATION. With regard to direct taxation it is no secret that Ministers preferred a land and income tax to a property tax, and that the House and country are divided m opinion on the subject. We have come to the conclusion that a compromise is necessary and expedient. It is the case with all systems of taxation that there is great advantage m a people having become used to them. Thus, we see m some countries the people educated to a mode of taxation which would be utterly distasteful to the denizens of other countries. The ueople of New, Zealand hava jjrown accustomed to a property tax. and, if for no other reason,' a great dea.! is to be said m favor of retaining it. We think it may be so modified as to deprive it of some of the features which are obnoxious to the views of those who prefer a different system of taxation, and it is our intention to make proposals m this direction. Ths primary alterations we wish to make are to provide for the exemption of agricultural improvements up to a certain sum, and also to provide for the exemption of machinery up to a certain amount. I know that by this compromise I may be giving pleasure to a few honorable members, who, accustomed to look upon obstinacy as the highest virtue, are delighted when they can point to a modification of opinion on the part of their opponents. For my part I have a liieh admiration for a public man who has the courage to boldly avow any change m his opinions : therefore, if I were able to admit, which I cannot, that I have entirely changed my views, I should not dread doing so. But I must not be understood to have much change i my opinions on the subject of the property tax. I look on it as unwise m principle and undesirable m its effects. I ghoul! prefer a simple land tax, m the assessment of which the valuation oi improvements was excluded, and an income tax if the land tax required to be supplemented. But, a's I have laid, a great deal of heed has to be given to the fact that people become accustomed to any system of taxation after a time, be it good or bad. Again, nothing could be more objectionable than a constant change from one system to another ; and it seems probable, if some compromise be not effected, that we shall oscillate for years between the two systems of property and land tax. Again, though an income tax is, m my opinion, a fairer way of getting at the earning of the people, it has 5 features of an obiectionablfl nature, to which it would take them years to become accustomed. And I may say further, as far as lam personally concerned, that, whilst I prefer a land tax to the complication oi the property tax, I am not iusensible to the risk one runs m espousing a land tax to its being supposed he is favourable to such a tax, not for income purposes, but for existing rights. lam no friend to parcelling out the land m large estates, and I hold that as regards our future disposition of the lands, we are free to deal with them m the manner that is best calculated to put a numerous population on the soil. But when I look back at times paat, and remember how from time to time special inducements were offered to rich men to buy large estates because of the money being wanted — of how, m fact, for the sake of money the. public estate was frequently sacrificed — I can see no justification for disturbing bargains which, however impolitic, were entered into with deliberation. I was an advocate of checking the system of land acquirement. I desired, when the railway policy was commenced, to double the price ot land exposed to free selection. I do not think I took part m the occasional bargains which were made for obtaining large sums from wealthy purchasers. But good laith is of priceless value. In the course of time some of these estates may be wanted for settlement, and when they are, the State has a perfect right to take them on paying the compensation. But at present we have still millions of acres, and do not require i anything of the kind. I am, therefore, well disposed to the compromise, which does, m fact, give a land tax, but accompanies it, I am sorry to say, with a tax on the capital value of personalty instead of on the incomes of its possessors. I was also, it may be remembered; opposed to any property tax or land tax unless it was localised. Here again I have somewhat modified my views. If such a tax were localised the towns would chiefly enjoy it, and the country districts, which most require it, would get the least. For the sake of that mutuality of interest to which I have alluded, it is better the State should collect the whole and average its distribution. I carried last year the repeal of half the property tax, and said that I would like to do away with it all if the charitable aid couH be localised. I propose now to return it to fd m the pound, to cover the amount of charitable aid contribution with which it is intended the State should supplement local expenditure, to meet the subsidies to local bodies, and to contribute to the increased defence expenditure. Property should surely bear its share ol this burden. It will not, I think, be possible to bring into force a^ once the changes proposed m respect to deductions for improvements. A fresh valuation is being taken, but it cannot be completed m time to be effective this year. At the conclusion of the delivery of the Financial Statement on Friday Major Atkinson said he -would like to know what course the Government proposed to take m reference to the discussion of the financial proposals. Hon. members could not go on with the discussion on Tuesday, because they had not eoi sufficient information. He understood the Premier to say that he would be prepared to explain the policy Bills of the Government, m order that the House would understand what was proposed to be done m the Statement. The Statement did not contain any information — it was simply a sketch. They could, of course, if the Government desired it, discuss questions as far a3 ordinary revenue and the public works proposals were concerned ; but he would suggest that Tuesday be taken for the hon gentleman* to expound his financial proposals, and he (Major Atkinson) would be quite prepared to discuss on Tuesday, after that, the Financial Statement. But he thought the House and the country would prefer to have these proposals fully explained before they were discussed. Sir Julius.Vogel said the Government, recognising the manner m which the hon. gentleman had acted during the session.were quite prepared to do anything to meet him. They should be guided altogether by his wishes. He agreed to bring down the policy Bills on Tuesday, explain them, and adjourn them m order that the debate on the Financial statement might be proceeded with. The resolutions were then reported to the House, and agreed to. Leave was obtained to sit again on Tuesday. ESTJMATEJS, The Estimates were laid on the table. On the motion of Sir Julius Vo^al, it was resolved that they be considered m Committee of Supply. The House then rose.