PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4778, 15 July 1876, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Friday, July 14. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at half-past two o’clock. PAPERS. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN laid on the table a report relating to the site of the General Assembly Library, &o. MR. SMYTHIBS. The Hon. Mr. HALL gave notice of his intention to move for leave to lay on the table the receipt given by Mr. Smythies for the £IOOO awarded to him in 1874, before the matter caine on for discussion. BILLS. Messages were received from the House of Representatives with the Registration of Local Electors Bill and the Naseby Waterworks Bill. The Bills were read a first time. DEATH OF DR. FEATHERSTON. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN said hon. members were aware that a telegram had been received announcing the death of Dr. Eeatherston, the Agent-General. The Government had not received any official information of the fact. He was sure, however, that the Council would recognise the eminent services of Dr. Eeatherston, and be willing to mark their sense of the loss which the colony had sustained, by adjourning before proceeding with the business for the day. The hon. gentleman moved accordingly, the motion was carried nem. con., and the Council rose. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, July 14. The Speaker took the chair at half-past two o’clock. ■ PETITIONS AND NOTICES. A number of petitions were presented and notices given. PAPERS. Certain returns ordered by the House were laid upon the table. NEW BILLS. Mr. WASON obtained leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the leasing and disposal of the waste lands of the Crown within the province of Canterbury after the expiration of the present leases in 1880. The Bill was introduced and read a first time.

THE EATING BILL. The Hon. Sir JULIUS VOGEL, in moving the House to go into committee on this Hill, made an explanation. He said the Bill at present exempted mining property from rating; but it had been represented to the Government that it would be very hard to the governing bodies in some districts if this became law, and the Government proposed to amend the clause which dealt with the subject, so as to allow of mining property being rated. He stated that the Government proposed to rate pastoral property at half its annual value. The Premier also explained the intention of the Government respecting Canterbury leasehold lands the tenure of which would expire in a year or two. The Government, after carefully considering the matter, had come to the conclusion that, judging by previous practice and by the laws which have existed from time to time for a long series of years, it would be proper that if present runholders were willing to pay such rentals as mi"ht from time to time be considered fair, they should have the preference in continuing to hold the property. It was proposed that there should be a valuation of the runs, and their carrying capacity ascertained and a new assessment fixed such as the House might consider fair, and if the present runholders were willing to pay the increased price they should have the preference. As to Otago the case was widely different, because the tenure there was much more secure. Further, the Government proposed that it should be left to the Waste Lands Board to decide before the lease expired whether or not there should be a renewal, or whether or not the runs should be cut up into smaller runs. Mr. TRIBE protested against goldfields property being rated, because of the uncertainty of assessments. The value of property on the goldfields was subject to such sudden changes that it would be impossible to rate it with any degree of fairness. Thus a claim today was worth an enormous sum, to-morrow it might be valueless. How could such property berated? Mr. ROWE disagreed with this. The Bill was then committed, . A discussion arose upon the following subsection of section 2 “The ‘rateable value’ of any property means the rent at which such property would let from year to year, but shall in no case be less than five per centum on the annual value of the fee simple thereof ; and in

the case of unoccupied lands means five per centum on the value of the fee simple of such lands. Mr.. BUTTON moved as an amendment the following; “The ‘rateable value’ of any land means five per centum upon the amount for which such land without any improvements thereon or thereto would sell in the market at the time of the valuation thereof. Mr. Button said that since he had, when the Bill was previously under discussion, mooted the principle of taxation embodied in the amendment, several hon. gentlemen had intimated to him that they approved thereof, and had requested him to test the feeling of the House upon the subject. In compliance with such request he therefore moved the amendment. It had long been felt that great injustice was done to those who improved thmr property, by charging that property with additional taxes in proportion to the amount of improvements effected. The system proposed by the amendment would equalise the burden of taxation. There were those who had neglected to improve their property, but whose property had been greatly increased in value by the industry of their neighbors and the progress of the country. Those persona ought in all justice to pay the same amount of rates as their, more enterprising neighbors. Those persons whose estates had been enhanced in value without any effort of their own might fairly be called upon to pay rates in proportion to the wealth that had been forced upon them. After a few remarks from Mr. Kelly and Mri Hodgkinson, The Hon. Sir JULIUS VOGEL opposed the amendment. Although he had no doubt much might be said in favor of the proposition, he could not conceive any fairness in a proposal to bring improved land down to the same value as unimproved land. If such a scheme as this were to be adopted, where would they go to get at the value 1 It would end in this, that they would have to go back to the original upset price. If a person spent £IOOO in improving his land, say by putting a large building upon it, why should he not be called upon to pay more rates than his poorer neighbor who was only able to build perhaps a two-roomed cottage ? It might also be pointed out th aWjhere would be considerable difficulty in carr^ 1 . ” out the proposal. If it were wished to fix the —' rate for a town, it would be necessary to go back and find out the value of the town before it was a town. Still, the Government felt that the principle which guided the hon. member was worthy of attention. Mr. BRYCE said the arguments of the hon. member tor Hokitika were based on a fallacy. The truth was these local governing bodies must have funds, and the people who could best afford to pay were those who could afford to make improvements.

Sir R. Douglas, Messrs. [Carrington, Curtis, Swanson, Stout, Barff, Montgomery, Lumsden, Kennedy, Stafford, Seymour, and Wasou took part in a long discussion, in which a great many aspects of the question were presented. Mr. STOUT gave notice of the following amendment:—“The ‘rateable value’ of any land in counties or road districts means 5 per centum on the value of the fee simple thereof, and 3 per centum on the value of the improvements on the said land ; and the ‘ rateable value’ of any land in municipalities means the rent at which such land would, with the improvements thereon, let from year to year, but shall in no case be less than 5 per centum on the value of the fee-simple of the said land, with improvements.” Mr. BUTTON, in reply, said the means of taxpayers were not the only question to be considered. The principle that people should be taxed according to their means was to a certain extent a good principle no doubt; but there was this to be considered, if a person spent money in improving land, why should he be called upon to pay additional taxes ? If he invested his money in other ways, which would not benefit the country in so high a degree, then he would not have to pay taxes on his expenditure. The House then divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. The ayes were 41; the noes 26.

Mr. STOUT moved the following proviso : —“Provided always that in valuing the fee simple the valuer shall be guided by the actual selling price, and not by any provisions of the Waste Lands Act.”

The Hon. Sir Julius Vogel and Mr. EolLESTON opposed, on the ground that it was undesirable to introduce a mixed system of valuation.—Mr. WasON spoke strongly in favor of the amendment, because it was impossible to place a uniform value upon the land. Some of the land in Canterbury was very valuable, but there was other land, on the mountain tops, which required five or six acres to carry a sheep.—Mr. Seymour took up the same position.—Mr. Whitakeb expressed himself in favor of land being valued, not by any uniform rule, but at its exact value. He asked that it; might be made clear whether the rates were to be levied on actual value or nominal value.— Sir Julius Vogel said he intended if the amendment were rejected to move the following proviso : “ The said value being not less than the price by law chargeable by the Crown for waste lands of a similar character within the provincial district.” —Mr. Whitaker pointed out that in some oases this would act in a very peculiar manner. For instance, he understood that one county took in portions of two separate provinces, Canterbury and Otago. Thus in one part of the county the land would be valued at £1 per acre at least, and in the other part at at least £2 per acre ; and one person would be paying double the taxation paid by his neighbor. After further discussion, a division took place on Mr. Stout's amendment, the numbers being—Ayes, 36 ; noes, The clause was, after discuss! C®, amended as follows, and agreed to :—The rateable valiaof any property means the rent at whith such property would let from year to year, but shall in no case be less than five per centum on the value of the fee simple thereof. Provided also, that every person occupying wastelands of the Crown, or other Crown lands, for pastoral purposes, shall be rated only in respect of the annual value, having regard to the tenure under which the said lands sre held. Provided always that in valuing the fee simple the valuer shall be guided by the actual selling price, and not by the provisions of any Waiste Lands Act.

After passing clause 10 progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again. THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS BILL. A message was received from his Excellency the Governor covering the Financial Arrange ments Bill. The Hon. Sir JULIUS VOGEH -oved is introduction and first reading, and inToina; o stated that in reference to the Counties BU the Government were not wedded to tie boundaries as detailed in the schedule to .he Bill. As to one part of the Financial Arraigements Bill, he might state that last sesrioi it had not been deemed desirable ia the heat of debate to propose compensation to Superintendents as a result of abolition, lut this year it was proposed to give Superintendents compensation to the amount of say two years' salary from the revenues of the provinces. The Bill was read a first time, and the second reading made an order of the day for Tuesday next. The House then adjourned.