THE BUSH TAX.

Southland Times, Issue 613, 2 January 1867, Page 2

THE BUSH TAX.

(TO THE EDITOE OF THE SOUTHLAND TIMES). Sib, — In a letter from Mr Eussell which appeared recently in your pages, he made mention of the bush tax. Perhaps it may be well to explain what that tax is, and the more so as it affords a good illustration of how little wisdom and how much real obstructiveness there is in much of the legislation of New Zealand. The bush tax is not a tax upon those who are so fortunate as to find sections with sufficient bush upon them, but it is a tax upon those who are so very unfortunate as to be obliged to choose sections upon which there is no bush whatever. In the former " case the settler obtains his firewood without any interruption to his daily operations, but in the latter case the settler has to sacrifice, upon an average, nearly one day in the week to cut and dray the wood from an almost inaccessible public reserve, aud cart it perhaps several miles. Now, it might have been thought that in a country where there is much openlandfor sale, that a wise and considerate Government in arranging things would have tried to throw something into the scale to compensate in some small degreefor so great a drawback as to the absence of bush. But in place of so doing, it puts an an additional heavy burden in the shape of a tax of £5 per annum for permission to cut firewood from the public reserve. It is only fair to say, however, that if it is not convenient for the poor settlerto pay this large sum at once, the tax wdl be taken from him in monthly instalments of 10s, making it in that case £6 a-year. Now this is a great blunder, for it produces no good whatever. It is no doubt meant that the money thus raised should help the government to meet the expense of keeping a number of rangers. The professed object of appointing the rangers is in itself very absurd. It is to prevent the bush from being wasted, as if the toil of cutting, dragging and carting the wood was such a pleasurable amusement that the people are in danger of indulging in it beyond their necessities. The alleged object of the heavy tax is equally absurd, for it is also to prevent waste, upon the principle that if you make a thing dear the people will use less of it— a very sound maxim, no doubt, provided the dearness has anything to do with the quantity used, but in this case it is totally inapplicable, for you may use little or you may use such, you may cut for yourself only or you may cut to supply a whole town; you may take wood suitable for fuel only, or you may take the finest timber for building purposes ; and you may employ your own axe, and that only for half a day in the week, or if I mistake not you may employ twenty axes and keep them and a sawmill going incessantly, and still the tax is just the same. It has nothing whatever to do with quantity, and therefore can never operate in the direction of preventing waste. It is plain beyond dispute that the whole affair is a blunder, in every way impolitic, and in no way beneficial, and ought therefore to be at once and for ever aboliehed. What greater preservation'can the busb need than that wliich is already provided in the fact that to cut and remove it costs hard toil. That indeed is a dearness which has to do with quantity, and therefore is quite effectual in preventing waste. I would respectfully say to our representatives— -" Do not strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Do not be afraid of the settlers wasting the bush while you yourselves, who are intrusted with the strings of the public purse, are allowing the public revenue to be shamefully wasted."

The depressed condition of our adopted country demands the total abolition of every unwise law, and a thorough retrenchment in every department of the public service, therefore I hope that my words will not be taken amiss by anyone. — I am, etc., Ant Old Settles. '•