Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE LAND TAX BILL.

We give a full and corrected report of the speech delivered by Major Atkinson on the motion for the aeconfi reading of this Bill— Major ATKIN ON : The Government have, I think, acted wisely in the interests of public time in endeavoring as far as possible to confine the debate upon their general finan. oial scheme to a particular measure. It is no doubt a difficult matter to deal with so many subjects, although they are part of one scheme, in a, single speech. We have had the Colonial Treasurer taking something like from an hour and a-half to two hours to lay his scheme before us; tiro Minister for Public Works has also occupied the same time ; and since then we have had the ppeech of the Colonial Treasurer in moving the second reading of the Land Tax Bill. It has thus taken altogether some five hours' to explain the Government policy, and therefore I trust the House will excuse me if X trespass on their time longer than usual, aud also if my statement is not so complete as it might bo. I propose to examine the Financial Statement and the Public Works Statement in their twofold aspects as histories of the past and proposals for the future. Before proceeding to that, I desire to make a few remarks with regard to the public accounts of the colony. It is a matter of great regret that during the last two or three sessions the Hon, the Premier and a few of his immediate followers have thought it right to impugn the accuracy of the public accounts. Although whenever specific charges were made they were at once refuted, still, by diut of reiteration, a feeling had got abroad that something was seriously wrong in the Treasury, and a reference to the public prints of the time when the hon. gentleman first obtained a seat on those benches will show that it was supposed that, he having possession of the Treasury records, such revelations would be made as would render it absolutely impossible for members of the late Government to ever take office again, not upon political grounds, but upon grounds of personal corruption. X am very loth to refer to this matter in a statement of this sort, and I would not do so if we were not now in a position to settle this matter once and for ever. These hon. gentlemen having obtained their seats on the Government benches, this matter will, by their testimony, bo set at rest for ever. In the first place we had the Statement of the late Colonial Treasurer, and in that Statement no reference was made to anything being wrong in the Treasury or in the Treasury accounts. Now we have the present Statement, in which not one avoid occurs as to those charges. This is strong negative evidence ; but it is not all. The special mode in which ave have hitherto kept our accounts—an epitome of which I had the honor to lay upon the table when I made my Financial Statement last year, and upon • which my Statement avas founded—has rendered it impossible to present the detailed accounts until the next year; so that it has fallen to the lot of the present Colonial Treasurer to, prepare those accounts in detail, and, but for the block in the printing 'office, they avonld have been on tile, table of the House now, signed with his-name. It will be found that there is no difference between us—that is, between the epitome upon avhich my Statement was founded and the detailed accounts as furnished by the present Treasurer; aud this of course is an absolute refutation, by his own Treasurer, of the whole of the accusations avhich were so freely made by the Hon. the Premier last session and the session before. Now, in approaching the subject to-night, of course I have a great advantage over the late Opposition, because I have not only the public accounts before me, but I know they are perfectly true, and therefore, instead of troubling myself about book-keep-ing, I can proceed to consider what is their true meaning. So avith regard to loans ; hon. gentlemen, upon reference to the Statement I had the honor to submit to the House last session, in avhich I stated the colony avas indebted so much, avill be able to compare that with the statement subsequently made by the Premier representing that I had understated the debt by some millions. They will find that my Financial Statement and the Statement of the Hon. the Colonial Treasurer are identical; that is to say, the statement of the Premier has been absolutely contradicted by his oavn Treasurer of to-day. One particular point on which the Hon. the Premier last year laid stress avas the surplus with which I stated I began the year. I represented that we had an actual surplus of £148,000, supposing that our assets and liabilities realised the amount calculated upon. The Premier, upon more than one occasion avhen in opposition, and also after he obtained a set on those benches, declared that that was not a surplus ; that it avas a deficit; and that I know it avas a deficit. What do we find in this Statement • We find the Treasurer taking that amount, treating it as asurplus, and finally, after correcting it—the assets not realising as much as estimated by £25,000 —carrying the balance, £123,000, to credit as the surplus of the year. In justice to the late Government, I think, I was bound to point that out. I have no avish to rake up past debates or past grievances, but as this had become a matter of public notoriety I felt it due to myself to make this statement to the House. We are now in this happy position—which ave have never before occupied—that both Opposition and Government are .absolutely agreed as to the public accounts. We have assured data on avhich for the future ave can argue,, and those data are identical with those furnished by me Lust year. Now I will examine the Financial Statement so far as it relates to the expenditure of last year. It avill be in your recollection, sir, that when the Premier’s attention avas called to the fact that he had adopted our Estimates —tbe Estimates of that Government avhose extravagance he had spoken of iu no measured terms—the honorable gentleman said that ha accepted our Estimates disapproving of them, intending to enormously reduce them, and pledging himself to keep well within the expenditure therein proposed. I have quoted almost the avords of the hon. gentleman. Now, in the fight of that speech, and of the statement which the hen. gentleman also repeatedly made—and which undoubtedly assisted the popularity he has since obtained—that he saav his way easily to reduce the departmental expenditure by £IOO,OOO, X am going to examine the expenditure of last year. In passage 3of the Statement, the Treasurer gives the expenditure of the year. After stating it at £3,300,000, he says, “ So that, as regards the appropriations made by the House for the services of the year, there remains a net saving or unexerciaed power of expenditure of £175,646 17s. lid.” Now I have nothing at all to say to this mode of stating the amounts under' ordinary circumstances. It may be perfectly fair looked at in one avay ; but it does not at all represent the real transactions of the year avhen considered ■: in the light of the promises to avhich I have called your attention. In the first place, in order to ascertain avhether there has been a real saving, ave have to take off the liabilities already incurred. They are clearly, for our purposes, not a part of the year’s expenditure. I may remark that iu the total expenditure as above, the liabilities of last year are not included. This is merely the expenditure on the services of the year. We have, then, to take off from this apparent saving of £176,000 the liabilities amounting, according to the Treasurer’s Statement, to £121,000. That will leave a sum of £55,000 as a balance saved. Iu Table B it avill be seen there is a saving on . interest and sinking fund of £38,000. That, of course, is no saving at all, but simply an over-esti-mate, and the hon. gentleman would not claim it as such. That is £38,000 of the £55,000. It hon. members avill turn to “ Miscellaneous” they will see such items as these : “ Bonus for production of beet-root sugar, North and South, £IO,OOO ;” “ Sartoris and Downe, £15,000 ;” “ Rewards for goldfields and aids to prospectors, £15,000 ;” “ Final settlement, Frincesstreet Reserves, £5000.” These items amount to £83,000, against tbe balance of so-called saving of £55,000. I could easily run up £20,000 or £30,000 more, as an examination of the accounts avill show any hon. gentleman ; but it is needless, as X have shoavn. There is no saving at all in the avay iii avhich the hon. gentleman at the head of the Government absolutely pledged himself to save.' So much, then, for the expenditure as a ovholo. Let us noav look at it by departments. Wo may be told that

there is a savin# in tho departments. Well* let as look. Here I may say I regret the paragraph which the Treasurer has put in, in which lie shows savings in particular classes, because he hardly does himself justice or properly explains the position of affairs. I propose to take the nine great classes, excluding Education, Hallways, Surveys, aud Lauds, because they are in course of formation, aud it would bo impossible to compare Ilium—so that I take the nine other classes,: the Public Departments, Law and Justice, Postal and Telegraphic, Customs, Marino, Native, Constabulary, ' Militia and Volunteers, aud X’ublic Buildings and Domains. Now, taking the figures the Treasurer has given in the Estimates for the*purpose of comparison, hon. gentlemen will find the following rather startling results :

I have corrected only one, that is, the Public Departments, having omitted from each side of the account £4OOO voted for the AgentGeneral. I have also deducted £15,000 from the , expenditure— (see Tables D and H of the Public Departments)—because tbe estimates for the year in that class do not include this year £15,000 for Crown lands. Therefore I have had to take that out. If I had left it in, it would have made my case better; but that would not have been fair. Well, we find, from these figures supplied by the Colonial Treasurer, that although the late Government was designated by the Hon. the Premier as most extravagant for having proposed au expenditure upon these nine classes of £870,706, the hon. gentlemen have actually spent £B77,262—that is, £7OOO more, not £IOO,OOO less, as solemnly promised. Nor can it be said that they have not saved the amount they promised to save because of taking office during the year, for, if we take their proposals for this year, we shall find that they ask some £15,000 more for the same services than we asked. If there was to be a departmental saving made of £IOO,OOO, these are the classes in which the saving could have been made. But, in order to make the case complete, let us examine the other three classes which I have excluded from this examination. There is education: of course it would be quite unfair to bring that in. The amount voted has been much exceeded through an oversight on the part of the Government. The Education Bill having been amended by the capitation contribution being struck out,- the Government have bad to provide nearly £30,000 more than we asked, so there was no saving there. With regard to laud and surveys, there is an apparent saving upon the votes taken last year, aud to which the Treasurer refers. He says the expenditure is less than the estimate by £51,000. Let us eee 'what these savings consist of. There is Inspection of Sheep, £2OOO ; Compensation to Runholders, £7OOO ; District Land Officers, £I3OO ; Pees to Members of Waste Land Boards, £7OO ; Contract Surveys, £37,000 ; Hoad Surveys, £5100; Reconnaissance Surveys £IOOO ; Land Transfer Act, £I7OO ; making a total of £56,200. The unexpended balance which the Treasurer claims is £sl,ooo,but you will see that, in this class there was no saving at all. • Then, with regard to the estimates for lands and surveys this year, there is an apparent saving .in the estimates of £34,000. But iucludeclin this year's estimates is £16,000 which was not in last year’s estimates, so that there is an apparent saving iu this year's estimates upon last year’s of somethinglike £50,000 ; but honorable gentlemen will see, by a reference to the estimates, in what this consists. They take for district laud officers £SOO, instead of £l3oo—that is a saving of £BOO ; members of waste land boards, £ISOO, iosteid of £2OOO ; compensation for runs, £SOOO, instead of £B4OO. Then, for contract surveys, they take £31,000, instead of £58,500 ; for road surveys they take £3OO, instead of £6500 ; for native surveys, nothing, instead of £3OOO ; contingencies, £13,200, instead of £18,600 ; reconnaissance survey, nothing, instead of £IOOO ; land transfer survey, £IOOO, instead of £I4OB ; water races and contingencies, £10,500, instead of £13,900. These items amount to £51,000, or £IOOO more than the apparent savings in the estimates. These either represent contingent votes, or they ,represent work hot yet accomplished. Then, with regard to railways, of course the Treasurer makes no. claim for saving there. There is a saving of £63,000, but this arose simply through the lines nob • being opened. Ido not wish to take away from the credit due to the Minister for Public Works, although I differ entirely as to some of the reorganisations he has proposed to carry out, and which I shall take an opportunity of referring to upon another occasion. I have no wish at all to imply that I do not believe that he Is thoroughly in earnest in his endeavor to reduce tho expenditure of the department, aud to conduct it as economically as possible. Ido not wish to be misunderstood iu this matter, Ido not wish to imply that the Government have not used every possible endeavor to economise during the recess : I am not at all prepared to say they have not. But, admitting that they had every desire to make reductions, knowing they had the confidence of the country and of this House, and full power to do so, what greater testimony could be given to the care bestowed by the late Government upon the estimates now under consideration than the fact that those hon. gentlemen have been obliged to spend £7OOO more on' these nine classes than we asked the House for last year ? The truth is, all this talk about departmental reductions is simply talk. It cannot be done. It is quite impossible to hope for any such reduction as was pi’omised by the Premier last session, and I think the figures I have quoted amply show that. I know that the estimates of the late Government were prepared by each Minister with the utmost' care, and I myself went through the whole of them with each Minister with the anxious desire to reduce every item if it were possible to do so. The moderation of our demands is shown by the fact that this Government, which undertook to enormously reduce our estimates, has actually been obliged to spend £7OOO more than we asked, and this year they ask £15,000 more than we asked last year for the same departments. So much, then, for the expenditure of last year. .Now with regard to the revenue. I think we ought all to bo exceedingly thankful to see the unexpected—l may say enormous—increase in both Customs and land revenue, which has resulted not in the very considerable deficit which seemed certain laat.year, but which this House and the Government took no steps to provide for, but in tho very respectable surplus of £120,000,. That is, to my mind, a most satisfactory thing. It shows the wisdom of the policy of tho lato Government, as I shall jaresently demonstrate, iu refusing last session to have anything to do with any fresh taxation. There is one item in this revenue account which I think the Treasurer should have called our special attention to, especially a Treasurer in the Government of Sir George Groy, than whom nobody was over more severe on any Government for carrying anything like loans to tbe ordinary revenue, If you remember, sir, we were perpetually accused of carrying loans to ordinary revenue. It is a singular fact that the attention of this House has not been called to this matter beyond the simple statement that, through the operation of the Public Revenues Act of last year, the Colonial Treasurer has. carried £190,000 to tho credit of revenue. Without any other reference to this matter than that they hiivo carried £73,000 of loan to the Credit

of the Consolidated Fund, £35,-100 of Defence Loan, and £37,000 Consolidate] Loan of 1567. This, of course, goes’- to towards making their surplus of £120,000. Mow the late Government never did such a thing as that. I am not blaming the hon. gentleman, although there is no doubt at all that it was an oversight in pacing the Revenues Act of last year. lam to blame, so far, that I ought to have found the defect in the Act. I overlooked the fact that there were balances of loan which, by the general wording of the Act, would be carried to the credit of the Consolidated Fund. But X think that we might have expected that the Treasurer of Sir George Grey would have told .us distinctly that in this surplus of £120,000 there was £73,000 of loan. To be very particular, I might reduce that amount by £SOOO, which was to be expended on native roads, and which was taken out of Defence Loan. Now, sir, in regard to this surplus of £120,000, with which the hon, gentleman says he began the year, I should like to point out that it is made up in precisely the same way as that in which I made up my surplus last year. When I stated that I had a surplus the Premier said there was not a surplus but a deficit. The ground on which the hou. gentleman made that assertion was this : He said, “ You have used £150,000 worth of Treasury bills in aid of Laud Fund ; you began the year with £61,000, the surplus of the previous year. Therefore there U £211,000 which is not revenue proper; and, as you only claim a surplus of £148,000, there is, in fact, no surplus at all.” Well, sir, the Hon. the Colonial' Treasurer has taken, in order to make his .surplus, £-73,000 from loan, and £123,000. tho surplus with which he began the year, in all £196,000 ; and therefore, according to tho line of argument taken by the Premier last year," if /We' deduct from this £106,000 the esfcimnted 'surplus of the Treasurer, £120,000, -instead of a surplus there is really a deficit of £76,000. X desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. gentleman has made up his surplus exactly in the same way that I made up mine last year. I make this statement to show that the late Government were not so bad as they were represented to be, or that, if they were, the present Government, who have only occupied those benches for about ten months, have already become as bad as we were. But, sir, I hold that tho surplus is a true one in each case. I will now say a few words regarding the loan which has.beeri raised by the Government. I must congratulate the Government on the successful floating of that loan; although, at the same time, I have no hesitation in saying that the credit of tho operation is due almost entirely’to. Sir ; Julius Vogel. I think there is one act on the’part of the Government which the 'House ought to deprecate—l mean the sending Home of Mr. Larnach in connection with this loan. There was no necessity whatever for sending him Home, Wo heard a great deal about the sending of Sir Julius Vogel to England in connection with a certain loan, and I think the action of the Government in sending Mr. Larnaclv Homo to negotiate this loan quite inexcusable. The question as to whether he is to be paid or not is another point altogether, but X hope that the Attorney-General, who I observe, is busily talcing notes, will be able to make some satisfactory explanation. The floating of the loan was no doubt a very satisfactory operation, but it would have been much better if the Government had given the credit of floating it to the person to whom it was duo, and had not sent Mr. Larnach Home to assist in the matter. This naturally brings me to the question of the inscription of stock. The Government thought it necessary to bring tbe Inscription of Stock Bill into operation, and they have ordered that certain stock in the colony should bo inscribed. In this, I think, they have acted wisely, and I am very glad to see the Act brought into operation. I should, however, like to show how the Premier described that .Bill when it was introduced by myself. Referring to me, ho said, in effect, “The hon. gentleman had exhausted every possible means of borrowing, and now had invented a new plan for raising money from the English lender;” and ho said, further, that the measure was the most impudent proposal which had ever been submitted to a Legislative Assembly. But after I weut out of office the hon. gentleman himself brought down a Bill which was word fpc word the same as mine; the only difference being that his name was on the top of it instead of mine. Then, when the Bill went into committee, an hon. gentleman proposed to strike out tho operative clause, and the Premier was found in the lobby voting against his own Bill. But sub* seqaeutly a new clause was inserted by the Government. It was to the effect that the Governor by Order in Council should bring the Bill into operation—in other words, that without the direct action of the Government the Bill should remain a dead-letter. As we have heard, that direct action has been taken, and “the moat impudent proposal ever submitted to a Legislative Assembly ” has become law upon the recommendation of the Hon. Sir George Grey, and has also become tho very foundation of the Government finance for this session aud for the future. I say that the man who is entitled to all the credit for this Act, and for the enormous good that will result to the colony from it, is Sir Julius Vogel ; aud I contend that it, will be a. lasting disgrace to the Government—a Government containing members who profess to be friends of Sir Julius Vogel—that they did not appoint him one of the agents for the raising of that loan. As soon as the colony has got over the effects of the Premier’s speeches, the people will decry this omission of theirs more than anything else. As I have said, I consider the estimates of expenditure reasonable, although the amount for the nine classes I have examined together is about £15,000 more than we asked for last year, and some £7OOO or £BOOO more than was actually expended. But I must conX do not like tho hon. gentleman’s calculations of the revenue' he expects to receive. Still, tho hon, gentleman may bo right. It is quite possible that the Custom© revenue may reach the sum which the hon. gentleman estimates—that is to say, £120,000 more than we.estimated last year, aud £50,000 more than was actually received. No doubt the municipalities and other local bodies are spending large sums of money ; but, if X understand the Public Works Statement aright, the expenditure by Government is to be very much reduced. Therefore the expenditure during the coming year is not likely to be much greater than it was last year, and I fear, therefore, that the Customs are over-estimated. The amount that will be obtained from the land revenue can only be guessed at. The sum which the hon. gentleman has stated will be received cannot possibly be realised this year,), if; all the Government lands to which railways are to be made are withheld from sale until 'the,.lines are male. It may be that X have misunderstood the Hou. 1 the Minister for Public Works, and that the 1 Government intend to reopen the Canterbury lands. In that '.case'it is. possible that the sum put down by the hon. gentleman may be reached, because there can be little doubt that in the North Island wo shall have very largo sales of land during the year. It appears to me, however, that the hou, gentleman is stretching the amount to'the fullest possible extent. In connection with this, the question of taxation naturally comes up, for if these estimates are excessive we may have a deficit. It seems to mo that the hon. gentleman is trusting somewhat to the chapter of accidents when ho contents himself with a nominal surplus of £04,01*0. I say £64,000, and not £89,000, as I am inclined to think that the hon, gentleman has made an error in his calculation of something like £26,000 in the 20 per cent, payable to counties from land revenue. I might here call the attention of the honorable gentleman to the fact that there is a discrepancy between his statement of the railway receipts and the statement of the Minister for Public Works. There is a difference, in fact, of , about £IB,OOO. The error may of course have arisen in tbe Treasury estimates of assets and liabilities, and I know from experience how difficult it is to obtain anything like accurate information upon those questions. Mr. MAOANDREW : They are both right. Major ATKINSON: They cannot both be right, although they may be reconcilable. One positive statement made by the Minister

for Public Works was that we have got a net profit of £145,000 in the South Island aud £IB,OOO in the North Island, and the Treasurer shows £145,000 for the two. Sir, I now come to the future proposals of the Government. The first thing that strikes one on hearing tho Public Works Statement and the Treasurer’s Statement is that, if they are not in conflofc, they require a very considerable amount of reconciliation. They both propose to draw the necessary means for carrying on the Government and Public Works from the Laud Fund. I will presently refer to tho proposals in the Public Works Statement, aud in the meantime T will deal with those in the Financial Statement. It will be in the recollection ot the House that last year we passed a resolution directing that the financial proposals of the Government during the present session were to be founded upon a property and income tax. We find, in the speech in which the Premier shadowed forth a policy by which it would be easy to save £359,000 a year, and probably £450,000 —in that speech which so captivated the hon. * member for Akaroa that he was obliged to fall down and worship the hon. gentleman—that he told us that a property and income tax was the right tax to put upon this country. He also spoke of a land tax, but that apparently, was only part of the property aud income tax ; and therein he said distinctly that no exemption whatever should bo made. It was of the utmost importance, according to the Hon. the Premier, that the poor man who had to pay only threepence should pay it, because should he become a pauper in his old age he might have a right to demand to go to the workhouse. I was very much struck with it ; but that was the ground upon which the hon. member urged the approval of his scheme. The man who paid a tax of threepence would be assured that in his old days he might go to the workhouse as a matter, of right and not of charity. The Premier having shown us that it was the right tax to submit to the country, I of course felt a little surprised whan I saw these, three extraordinary Bills, which are “ neither fish, nor flesh, nor good red herring.” If the Colonial Treasurer had not told us what they were for, I certainly should not have been able to discover—l confess that. The Treasurer says they are to equalize taxation between several classes of the community; they are for purposes of revenue to supply the deficiency which he isabouttocreateby abandoning certain Custom duties ; and they are to obtain some of the wonderful figment, the unearned increment. These three Bills, although forming part of this great whole, must necessarily be considered somewhat in detail. I will first come to the question of the land tax. The Treasurer tells us that one reason for putting the laud tax on is that the Public Works aud Immigration scheme has greatly enhanced the value of land, and that therefore it is only fair that tho laud should pay back some of this enormous increase which the public works and immigration had given to it at the expense of the poor man. He does not tell us anything about the land which has not been benefited at all, bub has been rather deteriorated through the Public Works scheme ,* but that is not a thing which we could expect him at the present time to consider. The honorable gentleman warns the agricultural classes—“ the landowners,” he calls them—but I call them agriculturists, because it is simply a misapplication of terms to speak of landowners in this country In tho sense in which the term is understood in old countries. The body of us are small farmers—l say “us,” because I am one. Though there is no doubt that some few persons have large estates, yet the majority of persons holding laud are really and truly agriculturists ; and, until the Colonial Treasurer’s statement, I was led to believe that we were tho backbone of the country. The honorable gentleman has warned us, aud has held up the French Revolution as a warning. He referred to the small farmers as fairly representing the French aristocracy of the eighteenth century. Can any one look seriously upon such a picture as that ? Tho Treasurer has warned the agriculturists of New Zealand to prepare in time, or else some great calamity such as the French Revolution will overtake us. If I had seen these arguments and had been told that they were used by the Colonial Treasurer, I could not have believed it possible of the hon. gentleman. Instead of going to his neighbors all round him, where he has lived for years, he turned to the history of the French Revolution to find what he was to say to support a laud tax in this colony. Let us see whether this unfair tax will touch what the hon, gentlemen is pleased to call the unearned increment, because that is one of his objects in imposing it. I will take three cases. Let us suppose that a railway in tho Province of Canterbury, for instance, goes through a particular district, the whole of the land in which has been bought at £2 per acre. Tho railway comes near a certain farm, which is immediately raised in value to £2O per acre; it comes within a short radius of another farm, which is raised to £lO an acre ; and another farm, further back, is only doubled in value. That is to say, one farm is raised to £2O, another to £lO, aud another to £4 ; or any other amount will do. : I am merely giving this as an instance. The man whose farm is raised to £2O an acre has gob an unearned increment, so called, of £lB an acre, the next man £3, and tho third man £2. Let us look how this tax which is to touch the unearned increment operates. The first man would .pay 10d., having pocketed £lB ; the second mau would pay 6d., having pocketed £3 ; and the third man 2d., having pocketed £2. ' What fairness or proportion is there in that ? Mr, STOUT—I will show you.

Major ATKINSON—If tbe hou. gentleman can show any proportion in it he will beat me altogether in arithmetic. The truth is, that tho tax does not touch the unearned increment as such at all; it cannot possibly do it. It touches capital, irrespective of the unearned iucrement, and in addition to it. I want to know why it should do that. Take tbe case of these three, men, selling out immediately after the tax is paid. One would get a profit of £lB an acre, and would have paidlOd.; another would get £B, and would have paid 5d.; and the third would get a profit of £2, having paid 2d. There is no proportion of taxation to the increase in value in that; bub this Liberal Government succeeds in taxing-heaviest the poor man who is getting the least profit upon his land. The man who is farthest from the railway has to pay by far the greater proportionate amount—namely, a penny in the pound, and the others a little over a halfpenny, if recouped upon this so-called unearned increment. This absolutely disposes of the hon. gentleman’s statement that he was going to touch the unearned increment as such. The hon. gentleman says this is not a class tax at all. I would ask him how he is going to touch the unearned increment, by which I understand he means improvement given to the land by public works and railways, except by a class tax. If he means to tax property only which is benefited by a railway, of course it is a class tax iu its very nature. He makes that class pay which is directly benefited, and no other : therefore the hou. gentleman’s statements are a contradiction in terms. Either it is a class tax, or it is not a tax upon the so-called unearned increment. Then take the question of land iu other provinces. In the province I come from it so happens that it is only of late years, since the railways have been carried on, that we have had any land for sale ; and the Waste Lands Board has valued the laud according to its position,- some at £l, some at £2, and some at £3 per acre, according to its proximity to tho railway. How is the hon. gentleman’s tax going to apply there ? The principle of unearned increment has already been applied. The value the railway has given the land has already been put upon it, and pocketed by the Government ; and yet those purchasers are to pay exactly the same per pound sterling as tbe man who made £lB out of an expenditure of £2 an acre. It is perfectly evident that the tax is nothing but this—a tax upon capital invested in land ; nothing more or less. Sir, it is for the House and the country to’consider whether it is wise for us to tax capital invested in laud, and only capital invested in land. I say, decidedly, it is not. The eue thing we are all striving to do is to people and occupy the country, and anything that tends to make the occupation of land more burdensome than other property, must lend, to that extent, to cause the non-occupation of the laud. This

ia simply a tax upon, money invested in land, and so fai* it fulfils the conditions of the resolution of last year to place a tax upon property. But we never directed that it was to be put upon a particular kind of property, , but upon all property, and it is incumbent upon Ministers to show why they put a tax upon laud and laud only, or rather upon money invested in laud, and not upon money invested in property generally. I will now look at the unfairness of the proposals. There is to be a minimum of £1 an acre. One of the chief reasons given by the Hon. the Treasurer for putting this tax on was because the public works had improved the value of laud. Well, take the back hills in Nelson and Marlborough, or the land to the north of Auckland, or on the East Coast, where not only have the people got no railways, but they arc not even to have roads, and are not to be encouraged by the hops of having railways made. We all know that there is land in some of these places which would be dear to occupy at ss. an acre; and yet these people are to be called upon to pay on four times the value of their land, while the rich Canterbury plains are to be taxed at their actual value only. Is there any fairness iu that ? This is equalising taxation among all classes of her Majesty’s subjects with a vengeance. The hon. gentleman had better bring in a Bill at once providing that all land not worth £1 an acre shall revert to the Crown. He would thus put those unfortunate people who own land not worth £1 an acre out of their misery at once. Then, sir, one word about the mode of valuation of the land. I confess I have been at some little pains to ascertain how this is to be done under the proposals contained in the Bill. It may lj>e said this is a committee objection, but X submit it is not, and that it goes really to the principle. I will give you a case taken from my own provincial district. Much of the land outside the town of New Plymouth was originally covered with a very valuable forest: that has all been cut dowu and cleared away, and the land ploughed up. I want to know what the valuer, when he visits the district, will do with that land. . Under the proposals in the BUI he has first to remove the houses, the fences, and the grass ; but I should like to know whether he is to put the trees back again, because they were part of the land originally. If the trees are put back, the laud will be four or five times its present value;.but the present occupier will think it very hard if he should have to pay for timbered land which he has been. at great expense to clear, and which he does not now possess. Go a little further into the country, and yon will haveexactly the reverse. There you will find farms from which all the trees have been cleared away, which have been ploughed up, and which have been laid down in grass. You have to go through the same process as in the previous case—you have to remove the fencing, the buildings, and the grass. Are you to put the trees back ? If you do you reduce the value of the land enormously, because the trees there would only be the cause of expense in removing them, and would be of no value for other purposes. Then, as has been pointed out by other speakers, take the case of swamps. How are you to deal with them ? Are you to put the land back into its original state of swamp, or recovered with tutu and fern, as the case may be ? This measure is no doubt all very well in theory, and it may perhaps suit those who profess to say that they are not going to tax industry. Not tax industry ! He indeed would be a very clever Treasurer who could invent a tax that would not be imposed on industry. Have not all these lands been acquired by the industry of those who possess them ? Must we not all be industrious before we can hope to be possessed of property ? Or, even if it be not our own industry that has given it to us, must it not be the industry of some one else ? It sounds very nice indeed to be told that only the original value of the land is to be taxed—it gilds the pill; but I take it that as soon as people begin to see the enor- ' mous cost of this valuation they will have a very different idea. Every case that I have alluded to will have to be very carefully considered by the Commissionner. I know, if I were the owner of any of the land I have described, I should insist uponknowing what principle the land was to be valued, and, I take it, everyone else would do the same. The truth is, the Bill as it stands is entirely impracticable. It will never bo possible to place a valuation on land on the principle which the hon. gentleman proposes. lam in doubt as to whether I shall vote against the second reading of the Bill or not. I am quite clear that I shall vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Geraldine, in the first place, because I disagree with him as to the desirability of immediately imposing au income aad property tax—l think tbat should be done ;—and, in the second place, because I think subsidies should ,be retained. But, sir, I have a very strong objection indeed to vote for a land tax, because the Government have not advanced a single reason that I have heard, nor has auy other hon. member who has addressed the House, why capital invested in laud should be taxed while all other property is untaxed. Therefore if I do not vote against the second reading it will be simply to show that I am desirous that a property and income tax should be placed upon everybody ? and I shall reserve to myself the right of voting against the Bill finally, or of dealing with it in any other way that I think advisable in the future stages in order that it may assume the shape of a general property tax. With regard to the tax on joint stock companies, X need not trouble the House at any length, because it was so clearly disposed of by the hou. member for Grey Volley (Mr. Woolcock). Ho so thoroughly disposed of the feeble arguments of the Trea- , surer on this point that I need hardly trouble the House further than to say that I disprove of this tax upon the very same grounds that I have advanced with regard to the Laud Tax Bill. It is simply taxing a particular kind of property—and a great part of that property which should not be taxed—instead of taxing the whole of the property in the colony. W ith regard to the Beer Duty BUI, I may say I have a very strong objection to it. The reason why I object to it is, that it is the beginning of an excise duty, and I say that the House should very carefully guard against permitting the thin edge of the wedge being inserted until there is an absolute necessity for such a duty. That time, indeed, may come, but it has not come yet. The Treasurer’s only object in imposing this tax is to relieve the duties upon tea and sugar, and he reduces the duty upon tea and sugar in order to relieve this poor down-trodden slave, the “poor man,” of whom we hear so much. He is going to impose this duty in order to equalise the revenue, and make up for the loss it will sustain through the -reduction of the duty on tea and sugar. I say. that the Treasurer, before he calls upon us to impose this fresh tax, should give us some far better reason than he has yet don® for substituting one tax for another when it has practically to be paid by the same class. This proposition is not statesmanlike. The argument used by the hon. member for New Plymouth, on this subject seemed hardly applicable. That hon. gentleman says he does not object to a beer tax, because the consumption of beer is voluntary. But does not that apply to tea, at all events, if not to sugar ? Is not tho consumption of tea voluntary ? I can quite understand the longing eyes which a Treasurer would cast at a proposition that would bring in £40,000 a year to the Government for au expenditure of £SOO, for I have been exposed to the same temptation myself when I was Treasurer. It is a very great temptation to a Treasurer, especially if he is in want of money. I was in want of money when the temptation came upon me, and I looked at it with very longing eyes indeed ; but I dismissed it. I dismissed it as a tax which it was not advisable to impose, because it would be the beginning of a system of excise duties. Being averse to any system of taxing local industries, I was unwilling to impose this duty if I could equalise my revenue in any other way. But I understand the hon. gentleman looks at it in a different light, because I see, by the report of an interview which he had with a deputation the other day—and I suppose tho report is correct, as it appeared iu a journal that is generally supposed to be favored by the Government—that he was asked, “ Why do you not tax wool factories ?'* And the hon. gentleman s reply was,

“So we will as soon as they are firmly established.” I immediately said to myself, “ Th-n this is only the beginning of the lion, gentleman’s desire to tax local industries.” And then, when I heard of this great trip to the South, it struck me that the hou. gentleman was anxious to travel in that direction in order t» find out what other industries he could tax, I fancy him going through Messrs. Sargood’s bootmaking establishment in Dunedin, the Mosgiel Woollen Factory, the Canterbury factory, and others, iu order to see how they could be taxed ; and then I fancy him coming down next session with a complete system of taxation that shall nob only take in the unfortunate brewers, but all those local Industries which are fairly established, I disagree with that altogether, and therefore I am not prepared to begin with the manufacture of beer, as I should not be prepared to go on with the taxation of woollen, boot, and other manufactures that may be established throughout the country. From tho remarks which I have made ic will be seen tbat I disapprove entirely of tho scheme—if I must call it such—which has been submitted to us in these three Bills. They seem to mo to fail entirely to carry out the distinct jriedges given by the Premier--the pledges which he practically came into office to fulfil, to equalise taxation and to put it equally on all property. There is no attempt in these Bills to put it on that moneyed class ia the colony who, owning c«pital, lend it out. They are exempted, as also are those rich persons who invest their money through their solicitors—X mean those who have some mil- ' lions out on mortgage. What is it tbat we want to encourage ? We are all agreed in desiring that we should have men on the land owning it themselves. We do not desire to see a landed aristocracy created, letting out their land in farms. Now let us see how farms are generally obtained in this country. Ordinarily a man gets au offer from somebody of a farm, with the option of leaving two-thirds of the purchase-money on mortgage. The mau scrapes together everything he has got, and takes the farm on those terms. The Government are actually going to tax that poor mau. That is not an imaginary case. Probably the majority of small holders throughout the country hold on that tenure. By this tax you are going to let the man who is the real owner of the land go absolutely free, and yon are going to make the man who is not the owner, in the true sense of the word, pay the taxes. I know that I shall, be told, “ You cannot tax mortgages ; but I say you can, if you put a general tax on property all through New Zealand. That is what the Government were pledged to introduce ; that is what they have failed to introduce ; but, I hope and trust, that is what the House will insist they shall introduce, instead of those miserable measures we have now under consideration. When I made this digression I was saying that the whole of these Bills appeared to me to be exceedingly unsatisfactory. Not being a friend of the Government, I cannot give them fatherly advice s like their thirteen or fourteen friends who have addressed the House, They have been unanimous—with the exception of one or two, who approved of the Land Tax Bill if it were entirely altered—ia beseeching the Government to come as near as possible to their promises, and to withdraw all their Bills. That is the desire of almost every man in the House. It Sj the desire of almost every mau iu the House that a property tax should be put on property all over the colony, instead of having these sham measures, which, I have shown distinctly, are unworkable, and, if made to work, must operate partially. Now I come to the tariff. Here there is a great falling off from the promises. The Premier, when ia opposition, saw clearly that the whole of the tea and sugar duties could be struck off at once without the least difficulty. The duties on coffee, treacle, sugar, molasses, rice, cotton goods, drapery, &e., could without auy difficulty be struck off immediately. The hon. gentleman was then in opposition ; but it is now quite a different thing when he is at the head of the Government. I would remind the House that he always spoke with certain knowledge. Ho told us, when his figures were questioned, that he had been used to these questions all his life—that he began when I was in my cradle, or in my early youth. So those figures are not the figures of a person who did not know all about it. They are the figures of mature judgment. Therefore my feeling of regret is very great when I see, after all that could be bo easily done by a mau perfectly acquainted with the whole circumstances of this country and of many other countries, that we have only a miserable id, taken off sugar and 2d, off tea. No doubt sago goes free, as was so admirably pointed out by the member for Geraldine. When I find this, I feel that the distinct promises of the Hon. the Premier have not been fulfilled, and that there is a certain trifling with the House when such large promises were made with such very small performances. I confess that Ido not believe we are justified in making any reduction in the tea and suirar duties this session. As prudent men of business, looking at the state of the revenue as I have shown it to be—looking at the very large estimates of revenue which the Treasurer has made—£l2o,oooa year morefrom Customs than for the year 187(5*77, and a million and a quarter from the Land Fund, and oven with that only showing a balance, before the supplementary estimates are voted, of £61,000 —we ought to pause before we agree to a reduction in such duties as the hon. gentleman proposes. By the Public Works Statement we have to make provision for a much larger loan. I contend tbat the proposed abandonment of tea and sugar duties will benefit the rich more than the poor. This puts me in mind that two years ago I directed tho Collectors of Customs in various parts of the colony to ascertain from the small tradesmen the actual expenditure of artisans and laborers of various sorts in their particular districts, in order to find out absolutely what was tho amount to be contributed by each of those classes to the Customs, I laid the result of that upon the table, and I should now like the Treasurer to try that experiment again. He could find out exactly what the various classes of working men spend upon these dutiable articles. Then wo should be in a position to know definitively what relief we are granting to those persons. lam satisfied that this reduction of duties will afford more relief to the rich than to the poor ; and, therefore, looking at the state of our revenue 'and the large works we must undertake, I do not think it ia wise to equalise taxation by the proposed reduction, but by the imposition of a property and income tax. With regard to the grain duty, it seems to me—as a free-trader since I was born, or knew anything about the question—that it is a great mistake to take off that duty at the present time. For the reason that I have already adduced, I do not think it is advisable to abandon £BOOO of revenue at the present time. This amount includes the remission on corn-sacks. It is merely a “ freetrade fad” to dispense with this duty at the present time. If it were a question of imposing the duty, I would be the last persou to agree to the imposition ; but I do nut see tbat it is at all incumbent upon us to take it off when, the revenue and expenditure are in their present condition. If it is taken off, clearly the duty should be taken off timber also. By taking off the grain duty w© may possibly disturb tho coasting trade of the colony. A largo quantity of timber goes from the North to the South ; and no doubt the ships load with grain at the Southern ports. I hope the Treasurer will be able to assure the House that the repeal of this duty will not have the effect of injuring the coastal trade. With regard to the ad valorem duties, the Treasurer made some very true remarks as to the immoral effects produced upon trade by the imposition of ad valorem duties. When I heard that, I thought we were going to have the cause of. immorality removed. I thought we were going to have specific duties imposed on those goods by which the Customs is cheated, if it u cheated at all. But what do we find? We find that the hon. gentleman iaclades everything the price of which is known, and, as far as I know, not a single item upon which tho Customs is generally cheated. I say it is merely “tinkering” with the tariff to meddle with it in this way. The Government are on those benches for the purpose of establishing a proper system of taxation ; and it is mere tinkering to bring in such au alteration as this. With regard to the item of hoots, I see the Treasurer mads a great print by saying that he was not

going to..increase the tax on the working-man, j because his boots were not now imported, but < made in the colony. This may be true; but he is to ta?: womou’s und cliiUli’en’s boots, nml anybody who knows anythin" of lionselceepin" known that ths husband's boots do not cost anythin" like tlio boats of the wife and children. So that, although it_ may be trus that the bon. gentleman has not increased the cost of working-msn’a boot*, lie has increased, by a largo amount, the sum which the working-man will bare to pay for boots and shoes for bis family. The whole question of the revision of the tarib shows that the Government have given no consideration to the matter. Those bon. gentlemen who have bad anything to do with the actual administration of Government will know that it is quite impossible that these measures could have been considered. Wo know that the ordinary administration of the affaire of the country could hardly have been performed'in the perpetual absence of Ministers from Wellington on their stumping tour, let -alone the consideration of important measures such as those ; we know that it is quite impossible; and we have ample evidence of that in the Bills now before ns. They have not been thought out ; they have not been considered ; they have never been looked at as a whole. Tor a Government pledged to revise the ineideucenf taxation toproduce such measures is what the House has certainly great cause to complain of. Koff I wish to make a for/ remarks upon the .Public Works Statement. That Statement, sir, is no doubt comprehensive in a certain way, hut I am unable to join with those bon. gentlemen who think it is anything like a masterpiece. When the people of the country really come to understand its meaning, if I understand it rightly, they will be greatly disappointed. It propounds one principle, and only one principle, which 1 fan see is sound at all, and that is the reservation of land in the districts where the railways will he made, in order to secure the greatest amount of profit to the Government. If that can be done—and I am not at all sure that it can—no doubt it will be an advantage to the State. But wo must hear in mind this : that, for onr absolute necessities wo have to obtain, first of all, a million and a quarter out of tho land ; we have to obtain that amount in aid of tho ordinary revenue. If our railway system is to bo anything like extensive throughout tho Crown lands of the colony ; it it is to go through districts which it is desirable to people, and which cannot be got at at the present time, then you will have to atop the sale of land, tho proceeds of which sale are flowing into the Treasury at tho present time—-the sale of which is to provide this one million and a quarter which we must have for our every- ■ day necessities. You must stop that in the present, in order' to obtain a greater price presently. Now, that lias not been face! by the Treasurer, nor has it been faced by the Minister for Public Works. We have not had this point reconciled. How, if the lands are to he reserved where railway's are to be made, are we to obtain a million and a quarter for our everyday necessities 1 I trust ' the Treasurer will tell us that ia the course of his reply. I think this House has a right to know where this money is to be obtained. Well, thou, this reservation of land seems to mo the only new feature in the scheme, and it is decidedly good, if practicable; hut, unfortunately, the Government do net even attempt to show that it is practicable. How is £125,000 to te obtained this year if the land he reserved ? As for tho other proposal, which has taken in tho country and in the House, that is, devoting an imaginary surplus—for it is nothing more—to the execution of public works, I say at tho present time it is wholly a delusion—it is purely imaginary. The Treasurer has not shown us how we are to get it. Tho Minister for Public Works, in that skilful way of his, with a wave of his hand, says, “ It ia asking too much if I say say just £700,000 of surplus land revenue may be taken for public works 2, I think I may safely rely upon that amount.” But he does not tell us why or how he arrives at the sum named. I ask, what does it mean ? Sir, this is what it means. If this surplus really goes-to the Treasury, you have got to obtain for the next five years £2,100,000 of land revenue annually—£l,2so,ooo estimated by the Treasurer; £700,000, with 20 per cent, added for the counties, required by the Minister for Public Works. But are ‘we likely to obtain it ? I should not like to say what this country will not do—it is a wonderful country ; hut this does appear too much to expect. I hope the railway in my district will not be fie one that will have to wait for this surplus —I trust it will bo made out of lean ; and let those gentlemen who have faith iu this surplus have the railways in their districts mads out of it. If this surplus is not to be imaginary, then the Treasurer ought to have shown us, as men of business, that there was a reasonable probability of obtaining this sum. The Minister for Public Works has tried to dazzle the people of the country with the idea that they are going to have their railways made out of surplus. That surplus ia hut a delusion, or, more properly, a vision of the future, which may or may not be realised. Therefore this dazzling of the public with the public works made out of surplus is at the present time a deception. If we could get it we should all be delighted to do it; hut the policy of public works cannot be changed one iota. If you are g an" to carry them on continuously, yon can carry them on by loan, and in no other way. By all means, if we have got a surplus, let us use it; but let us have a surplus before we begin to build on it. Let us, as men of business, ia the meantime put our revenue in that position that it will enable us to borrow a sufficient sum to complete the railways that we consider arc necessary to he completed. It is a serious omission not telling us how this is to he done. The Statement is remarkable for two or three serious omissions, A great injustice is, done to a large number of districts of the colony. The poor districts, wherfWt.is very difficult to make a railway, and therefore doubly impossible and doubly expensive to make roads —these districts are all to bo swept in for the purpose of taxation, but no relief is to be given to them in the way of public works, or iu any other way, except tho relief referred to by the Jion. member for Totara, who said that local government was to be greatly encouraged by having extended powers. I did not know what were the extended powers the present Government intended to give, and in reply to a question of mine the bon. gentleman said what would he given would be the power of constructing roads with their own money. That is a power they already possess. When tho people understand that the meaning of the Government proposals is that in poor and weak districts they arc only to have the power to construct their roads without assistance from the General Government, X do not think they will appreciate them very much. Mr. GISBOIINB : I said with the assistance of subsidies.

Major ATKINSON : It is new to me that the hoa. gentleman proposed to increases the subsidies. Mr. GISBORNE ; You say without any assistance.. Major ATKIN SON ; Tha lion, gentleman said increased power was to be given to local government, and he made a great point of it that tbo present Ministry had increased the power of local government. I say that these districts are entirely overlooked. I should not like to assume that it is because their voting power is weak, and the opponents of the Government would not attempt to make such a statement. Had the late Government been oh those benches I have no doubt something of that sort would have been said ; but I reject, as altogether inadmissible, that those gentlemen wero actuated by any such considerations or affected by them in any way. The fact, however, remains that these districts, both rich and poor, will be brought in to pay taxation, while they are to receive absolutely nothing in the way of public works. I hope that the House will insist that these districts shall have something like justice done to them. I hope the House will insist upon that, notwithstanding the weakness, of those districts, and notwithstanding that some of. them are inadequately represented in this House. Mr. MONTGOMERY ; What district ? Captain MORRIS : The East Coast. Major, ATKINSON-; The East Coast Histiiot it represented by one member only, It is

a very contemptible district no doubt, being only about one-fourth of the provincial district of Auckland ; but it is a district that will yet he heard of in this House and in this colony. Then there is this remarkable omission : there has been no reference made by either tho Minister for Public Works or the Colonial Treasurer us to what tho Government are going to do about immigration. Now, to my mind, that is the very key-stone to the whole policy. Yet apparently so little do they think of it that, although tho House Iras been six weeks in session, not one of the Ministry has even hinted at it. I do not know whether they propose not to introduce any immigrants, but I think we ought to have been told what they are "oih" to do. I have no hesitation in saying that if we do not continvre regularly to introduce inimh'rauts we shall get into great difficulties financially. I think it is the very saving of the country that there should he a regular flow of immigration to onr shores. As to the fairness nr otherwise of the Public Works policy, I must confess that X see a very great power of favoring certain districts by using the loan for certain railways and leaving the ether railways to be made from a surplus. When.we get the Public Works estimates—which the Minister for Public Works promised wa should have four or five days ago, before we discussed this matter —we shall then ho able to see whether the Public Works policy lias been fairly carried out. I shall therefore reserve my remarks upon that point until we get the estimates. Now, oir, X come to what,'to my mind, is one of the most important parts of the Statement—although it lias not yet attracted the attention which I think it deserves—namely, that no provision ia made for keeping the main roads of tho colony in repair. I should not have thought so much of this if the hon. gentleman had not said he would have a surplus of Land Fund of £700,000 a year. If I could have believed, as I do not believe, that the hon. gentlemen on those benches have abandoned the idea of Separation, or the restoration of Provincialism in some form, I should not look upon them with so much suspicion. I believe those hon. gentlemen are looking forward to the restoration of Provincialism. Neither the Premier, the AttorneyGeneral, nor the Minister for Public Works has ever denied it. They say to the country, in the Public Works Statemeot, “ Bo all your own local work's, and pay for your roads yourselves ; bnt we will not permit you cither to : borrow money or to rate yourselves above a' certain amount; nor shall you have any as- : sistance from us. Then you will understand i what abolition is.” Sir, that is not abolition. 1 If the proposals of the hon. gentleman in this Statement with regard to local public works ; mean anything at all, they mean this: “You ' shall be forced into some other organisation. This organisation is not what I approve of, and 1 I shall have it altered. The country may go to rack and ruiu, but what do I care ! I be- : lieve in provincialism, and provincialism I will i have.” Now, sir, if I get a distinct statement . from the Premier, tlie Attorney-General, and : the Minister for Public Works to the effect i that the Government have abandoned the idea ; of separation, or the restoration of provincialism, I shall accept it instantly ; hut, knowing i the hon. gentlemen as well as I dp, I am bound i to believe that they have not abandoned the idea of separation, or the restoration ot provin- ; cialism. Their friends say that the colony i cannot prosper until provincialism comes into , existence again. (Hon. Members : Hear, hear.) What more could be wanted to prove it than that cheer, sir? I say that this : non-provision for the carrying on of local i public works is a most serious omission ; that it means on the part ot the Government Separation or provincialism ; and I hope that, if the Government do not do it of tiicir own free will, this House will insist that proper provision shall he made for enabling the counties to keep their roads in good order. If we allow tho main roads'of tho colony to get out of repair the railway scheme will fail, and great distress will come upon the country. I say we are bound to make provision for repairing onr roads, and I hope tho Government will see their way to do it. If they do not, I trust this House will insist upon their doing it. There ia one other matter which I must touch upon, because, it affects my constituency—l mean the seizing of 15 per cent, of the Batea Land Fund. The reasons which have been given for that seizure wore most lame. If the hon. gentleman had proposed to take away the whole 20 per cent, all round, that would have been a different question. I hope the Honse will not allow the district which I represent to be selected for sacrifice. After a great many years, we are likely this year to raise a considerable sum in the shape of Land Fund, and the lion, gentleman is going to seize it. X say that if the Land Fund is taken from one district it should be taken from all,_ Now, sir, it is not incumbent on me to submit any scheme in lieu ot the Government measures to this House, and I do not propose on the present ocaion to do more than indicate, in general terms, what I think should be done. It is my business now to criticise the proposals of the Government, and I think I have shown that they have failed to carry out not only the pledges and the promises which they made to the country, hut also the resolution of this House, directing them to found their financial proposals upon an income and property tax. I think wo should at once impose an income and property tux. If the Government propose such a tax they will have my support, and, I believe, that also of the hon. gentlemen who usually vote with me. We should impose that tax, and until we se«. what can he raised from it we should make no alteration in th<- present tariff. The proposed reduction of the duties on tea and sugar will not materially benefit the poor man, and, if he is to be the roan to whom we are to appeal, we should inform him of that fact. When it is made known to the public that the reduction of duties on tea and sugar will not benefit the poor man as it will the rich man, I have no doubt he will be quite prepared to wait until it is known what can he obtained from a property tax, and what are onr real requirements, and especially when he knows that the abandonment ot the duties on tea and sugar means the loss of borrowing power to the extent of £2,000,000. It must also he borne in mind, when we speak of reduction in taxation, that, if yon deduct the surplus ot £123,000 with which we begin this year, and the amount of the loans taken to aid of revenue, viz. £73,000, from the revenue, the revenue for the past year is about £70,000 less than the expenditure. Therefore, when the Colonial Treasurer tells us that he has no need fer an increase of revenue, we are inclined to doubt the accuracy of his statement, and to think that he is over-sangnine. The taxation at present does not press heavily upon anybody, and if we impose an income and property tax this year we shall ho able to judge next year as to what our requirements are, and then we shall be in a better position to make a change in the tariff, not in this tinkering way now proposed, but by striking the entire duty off certain articles, so as to afford relief to those classes requiring it. X say provision must be made to enable our main roads to be kept in repair. It can ho done without infringing any principle of Abolition, and it must be done before tire Honse rises. Now, sir, before I sit down I shall refer to a passage in the Financial Statement of last year—a statement about which I have been very much twitted, and a statement which I may say has been very much misquoted by the hon. gentlemen opposite. Tho passage I shall refer to is that now celebrated one referring to political rest. Tho wisdom of that passage ia fully proved, as I think I shall he able to show. I will now read the passage I have spoken of. A f ter showing tho requirements of the colony, I proceeded to say this “ I take it for granted, then, that we must, at any rate temporarily, aid tire Consolidated Fund ; and the question is, How is this to he done 2 I know, sir, that many persons whose opinions are entitled to great weight, from their position and their knowledge of the colony and its requirements, think that tho lime has arrived for levying a property and income tax; and, if we were now in a position to deal with tho question of the readjustment of taxation, much might be said in support ot such a tax. For my own part, I am very loth to open the question of taxation at present. Our liabilities being what they are, the subject of taxation is not lightly to be

touched. It ia one which requires the most care* ful thought—it must be considered as a whole, and it would be impossible to deal with it satisfactorily daring the present session. When our trank railways are nearing completion, when we have bad time to consolidate and settle down, and are able to determine our real requirements, then the whole incidence of taxation must be considered ; but to deal with it now, in a fragmentary way, would, I think, be a serious mistake.

“For the reasons just stated, and because we think our requirements for the year can bsmet in a way which wi ; l be far more satisfactory to the country, aud which U fair and reasonable, I shall not propose additional taxation this year. And I venture to hope that additional taxation may be altogether avoided if we oh* tain from our. railways that income which seems now assured, and if we are successful in the inscription of our stock.” Then I concluded with this passage, which hon, gentlemen frequently misquote “For the immediate future, the Government believe that the need of the country is political rest. Time is needed for the completion aud development of our public works ; quiet is needed for the consolidation of the social results without which a scheme of immigration and railways in any new country would be a failure : time and rest will co-operate in enabling us to satisfy those outside the colony who are concerned as to its fate that our confidence in the wisdom of the work we commenced in 1870 was justified, and that, though its coat has beeu very great, its benefits have been commensurate. “ The Government, sir, taking this view of the position, believe that the present is a time when the country should not be troubled with questions as to the incidence or the specific character of our taxation. Farther taxation will not be necessary this year, if our proposals are accepted. Before long, when our now institutions are consolidated, aud pur railway system has been developed, we shall be aVle to face the question of new taxes, if any are needed, or to discuss calmly the principles on which taxation should be raised, and the manner in which such principles should be practically carried out.” Now, sir, there is nothing in that passage to bear -the interpretation put upon it by the Government. There is no such idea in it as “ rest and be thankful.” It implies much hard work of urgent importance to the welfare of the colony. I do not retract a single word! used upon that occasion. I will adc any hon. member to consider the state of tho country and the state of this House when that passage was uttered. We had had two years of unexampled turmoil. We had but just carried the greatest constitutional change which had ever been effected in a colony. Whether that measure was for good or evil is another question that is neither here nor there, so far as the meaning of this passage is concerned. For myself, I believe that it was the greatest work that had ever been done in New Zealand, as will be in time acknowledged, and I have no doubt at all that our financial position at present proves that we should not have beeu able to continue our Public Works scheme but for Abolition. If the pressure of the large provinces on the Treasury had continued we should have been, I will not say bankrupt, because that is a wrong expression, but what X will say is that we should have had to stop onr Immigration and Public Works scheme without doubt. An Hon. Member : No.

Major ATKINSON : Of course I am only giving my opinion, and I know that hon. gentlemen will differ. The fact remains that it was one of the greatest struggles which any colony has ever gone through. We had under .consideration, also, that session, a national system of education, which we proposed to carry through ; our revenue had been falling for two years ; the work of administration thrown upon the Government was enormous ; and the new Constitution had to be modelled and given effect to. That was the state of things when I addressed those words to the House. I say the evident meaning of those words was, that we had gone far enough for the present; that we must apply ourselves, aud induce the country to apply itself, to tho consideration of the work that had been done, in order to get it to help to build up the Constitution. - We had also to introduce a national system of education ; and I maintain that it would have been perfect madness, with a falling revenue, and iu the face of the bitter party-hates that had been engendered ia the country aud in the House, for any Governmene to attempt the immense farther work of considering the incidence of taxation. Instead of that, tho Govermneet desired to direct its attention to careful administration, and to the carrying oat of what had been already begun. Sir, the wisdom of our proposed coarse is now apparent iu the disorganisation all over the country, and i:a the wretched measures which the Governmenthave introduced into the House this session. If, instead of wasting his time by stumping the country, and asking, as the Hon. the Premier did as!?, the electors for the Thames and other districts to assist him in forcing an income and property tax upon an unwilling House, the House having already, as he knew ; passed a resolution in favor of such a tax, — if, instead of the humiliating tour which the Premier made, ha had given his mined to administration and to the consideration of these important measures during tho recess,—if he had come to his office and, with the assistance of hi* colleagues, considered the question of the incidence of taxation, considered the question of manhood suffrage, aud of the other Bills we arc to have before us this session, docs any one doubt for a moment that the measures submitted to this House would have been infinitely more perfect than they are now? Can. we have any better proof of the wisdom of the proposal of the late Government to stay for a time further organic changes than the abortive measures which Ministers have submitted this session ? . % ■-

— Estimates, 1378-79. Estimates, 1377-78. Net Expenditure, 1S77-7S. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. Public Departments 184,570 10 2 180.099 17 0 179.862 19 0 Law and Police 143,900 7 4 139.745 3 7 142.073 0 11 Postal and Telegraph 243,954 0 0 232,3*25 0 0 215.956 10 1 Customs 40,903 13 1 41,103 16 G 30.134 10 7 Marine 45.900 14 10 39,511 3 1 33.407 7 7 Native 81.857 5 0 33.063 19 7 35,500 13 11 Militia & Volunteers Constabulary Domains and Public 24.673 12 0J 31.322 12 10 24,041 13 11 137,774 10 0j 138,015 10 0 132,002 11 0 Buildings .. Liabilities due on these classes 32,341 4 0 33,409 4 0 26,000 13 5 48,010 0 0 . ' Totals.. ! . 885,092 5 5.' 870.7W 0 7 S77.2G2 9 5

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18780914.2.23.4

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5450, 14 September 1878, Page 1 (Supplement)

Word count
Tapeke kupu
13,685

THE LAND TAX BILL. New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5450, 14 September 1878, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE LAND TAX BILL. New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5450, 14 September 1878, Page 1 (Supplement)

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert