PARLIAMENT

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1133, 5 December 1879, Page 2

PARLIAMENT

Wklli.vcton, December 4. In the Legislative Council to-day, After the usual work, the Canterbury Church Property Trust Bill and the Mines Act Amendment Bill were read a third time and passed. A batch of small measures from the Lower House were read a first time, and then ensued an hour and a half's debate on the Te Aro Reclamation Bill, the second reading of which was eventually carried bv 20 to 11.

Through the length of this debate, all motions which had been given lapsed for the daj r . In the House of Representatives today, Mr. Macandrew brought up the report of the Election Telegram Committee. He stated that the Committee were of opinion that seven telegrams sealed up and accompanying the report had been improperly laid on the table. The report itself set forth that five messages were originally paid for by the senders, and forwarded through the department to their destination, and two sent by mistake to the Telegraph Office. These had been folded up and left untouched. Seventy-six telegrams in all had been sent and received by the Government on election subjects. f- Mr. Montgomery asked that the evidence and the prcceedings of the Committe be read. The report was not an unanimous one, as there were three votes ' on the one side and four on the other. I In reply to a question, the Speaker said the telegrams would remain in his hands until the House had decided what course to adopt in the matter. Sir George Grey proposed that the resolution in Committee be read to the House. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion. Mr. Macandrew thought the shortest way would be to read the minutes and proceedings of the Committee. Mr. Hislop said the Premier had taken the responsibility for the production of these telegrams, and they were produced against the will of the head of the department. It had also been stated that the draft report of the Committee had been submitted for inspection to the Government. Mr. Bowen, as a member of the Committee, denied that the proceedings of the Committee were reported outside as had been alleged. He was quite certain the Government had not seen the report. Mr. Hall &aid that many statements been made which were utterly without foundation. The question was then put that the report lie on the table, as against the amendment that the minutes and proceeding of the Committee be produced and read to the House. The House divided : Ayes, 32; noes, 41. The amendment for reading the minutes and proceedings was accordingly lost. Sir, Tole said that a distinct statement had been made that a draft report had been submitted to Government before

being submitted to . the Committee. He moved that a Comriiittee be elected to enquire into the truth, of the allegation. Mr. J. T. Fisher seconded the motion, and expressed surprise that the Government had not denied A,'he truth of the allegation if it- was untrue. Some of his telegrams had been produced, and he wanted to know liow that was done without any authority on his part. He had never been asked to attend the Committee and give evidence in the matter, although he; was told/by the Chairman that his evidence wopld be taken. It was a most disgraceful proceeding that ihe'privacy of the Telegraph Department should be invaded. in that way. Mr. Wakefield said that the report of the Committee was never shown to any one until it was submitted to the Committee. He drew it up himself, and it was shown to no one until it was submitted to the Committee for approval. After a little further discussion, Mr. Tolo's amendment was withdrawn with his consent. Mr. Finn proposed as an amendment, "That the Speaker be requested to examine the sealed packet, with a view to informing the House as to the names of the senders of those telegrams. The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment. The House resumed at 7-30. Major Atkinson moved the second reading of the Property Assessment Bill. He said he had already shown that new taxation to a considerable extent was necessary. They had already gone as far as they could in the way of indirect taxation, and direct taxation was now necessary. A difference of opinion existed as to the propriety of taxing incomes or capital. Government has come to the conclusion that it would be better to tax property than incomes arising from property. An income tax was taxing a lean's energies and abilities, apd on that account it was objectionable. In a Colony like this the majority of settlers had no fixod incomes, but there was no difficulty in rendering an account of what one possessed. In America the farmer had to give a return not only of crops, but likewise any real property obtained during the year. Then, again, he was not allowed to deduct anything for the labor he employed in improving the property. The objection that by taxing property and not incomes certain classes would escape to some extent was true. A property tax was levied for the purpose of adjusting taxation. If speculation in land was going on to the detriment of settlement, then by all means let them resort to special legislation; but it was wrong to impose a land tax simply to get hold of the larger class of landowners. They could not deter speculators by that tax. On the other hand it was a gross injustice to a particular class of the community. It was proposed that a man should be his own valuator. The owners were to send in & return to the Deputy Commissioner, deducting as they thought fit any debt they might owe. It was open to the Commissioner to object or not. It was then for the owner to substantiate the return he had made before the officers called revisers. In that case there would be no prying into the man's affairs. It might be as far altered as to make the tax receivable from the mortgagor instead of the mortgagee. The question of how much was to be levied on property was not touched upon by the Bill. They had to make up one and a half millions per year to meet the demands of the public creditor, and without some such tax as - this they would always be in the position.of being compelled to adopt some temporary expedient for making good their liabilities. The proposal was simply to provide the machinery, and then as occ.'ision required to Hz the amount, This year they proposed to make it one penny. In arriving at that determination he was led by the feeling that they had to face very uncertain times, and it was necessary they should not overrate their revenue, Then again their expenditure was more than it should be. They would use every effort towarda economy ; still he could not at present tako that into account. He had therefore estimated the expenditure at that of last year. In that case he had shown that a deficit of LBOO,OOO or L1,0C0.000 would exist. They proposed to niuet the House in May, and if they found their revenue was rising on the expenditure, putting the amount at one penny, it could be reduced to what was deemed necessary. Before next March they would have to borrow some LBOO,OOO, and it was just possible that their loan would not be negotiated by that time. With this tax they would be in a position to go into the money market with much better grace, having the ordinary expenditure amply covered by taxation. Looked at impartially, he thought members would agree that an income tax would be inexpedient at present.

Mr. Ballance condemned the remark made that the proposed tax of one penny in the £ was chiefly made for the purpose of raising the credit of the Colony in London. The Treasurer had told them that an income tax was more inquisitorial than the property tax, but he had given no proof in support of that statement. TTnder an income tax, it was only in cases of doubt that it was rendered inquisitorial. Now he asked would it not be the same in regard to property ? There were a large number of concerns in the Colony in which large amounts were invested, mining companies for example, which paid no income at all. Isow, this Bill would fall as heavily upon them as it would fall on concerns paying large incomes. They had evidence that the land tax which was condemned by the Treasurer was being resorted to by other colonies. If they eliminated all objections from the land tax incidental to it, then he would say that they had adopted a tax acceptable to the whole country. There was a great danger of chopping about from one tax to another, and that was precisely what the Treasurer proposed to do. The credit of the Colony depended, not as the Treasurer would lead them to suppose, on one tax, but upon the whole system of taxation. One of the most prosperous classes in the Colony was that composed of professional men, and it was to escape altogether. The question arose, Was all this crushing taxation necessary? A large amount of the represented deficiency was due to the manner ill which the Treasurer brought down his statement. He saw no reason to reduce the revenue L 250,000 as the Treasurer had done. The late Government had been blamed for not calling the House together earlier than they did. He, however, contended that there was no financial reason for doing, sp. The Treasurer had attacked his estimates of last year. The fact Ayas that they had estimated LIOO,QOO from the land tax, and tfyey would reach that amount within HO,OOO. In the financial statement for the present year a mis-statement of L 50.000 of taxation alone had been made. Ihe expenditure was over-estimated by L 79.000. Mr. Shrimski next spoke in opposition to the Bill. Mr. Macandrew said all the minority could do was to record their protest against the measure. The feeling produced was that after spending 50 years of his life in New Zealand he would have to leave the country. Before imposing a tax of this kind other means, should have been exhausted, Mr. Hutchison did not think that any amendment likely to be made would make the Bill tolerable. Its principal effect would be to create another army of officials who, once created, the Colony would have great difficulty in getting quit of. The system of taxation proposed was vicious in principle, inquisitorial, in effect, and it made no distinction between a man of spialband a man of large property, ; December 8. The House divided on the'seoond 'reading of the Property Assessment Bill at

2.45. Ayes, 24 : Atkinson, Bain, Bowen, Dick, Gibbs, Hall, Hirst (Wallace), Hurthouse, Kelly, Kenny, M'Lean, Murray (teller), Pitt, Richardson, Rolleston, Saunders, Seymour, Shanks, Stevens, Studholme (teller), Sutton, Swanson, Trimble, "Wright. Noes, 14: Andrews, Barron, Do Lautour, J. T. Fisher (Heathcote), George (teller), Gisborne, Harris, Hislop (teller), Moss, Seddon, Shepherd, Speight, Stewart, Tole.