GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2243, 20 August 1891, Page 4

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

"Wellington, August 15. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday. BILLS PASSED. The Christchurch Electric Lighting Bill and the Truck Bill were read a third time and passed. SECOND READINGS. The Factories Bill, after opposition on the part of Sir G.Witmore and Mr Pollen, was read a second time and referred to the Labour Bills Committee. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 1.30 p.m. on Tuesday. RIVAL INSURANCE COMPANIES. Some discussion followed on the answer given by the Premier to Mr Fish to the effect that the fact of the Australian Mutual Provident Society having distributed circulars showing the comparative results of the operations of their own and other life assurance offices was in contravention of the agreement arrived at by the various associations some months ago, that the correspondence was now proceeding between the Government and the head office in Sydney on the subject. In reply to another question by Mr Fish, the Premier said that during June and July the amount of new business in the Government Insurance Department had fallen off as compared with the corresponding months of the year, but on the other hand the lapsed policies for July has been considerably less. He said that the House was not the proper place for a discussion on the business of this Department, but if honourable members were dissatisfied with the Department they should move for a Board of Enquiry to Institute a thorough investigation into its workings. MANUFACTURE OF SALT. Mr Seddon informed the House that a firm had made a proposal to the Government with respect to the manufacture of salt in the colony, if they were granted a small bonus. The question was now under the consideration of the Government. women’s suffrage. In answer to Sir John Hall the Premier said that the Government would set apart Monday next for the discussion of Sir John Hall’s Female Franchise Bill, and they would also afford Sir John Hall an opportunity of having the Bill dealt with in Committee. If necessary the Government would take the Bill up themselves, but on the distinct understanding that members were free to vote on it as they pleased, and not as a Ministerial question. It was also the intention of the Government to proceed with the Electoral Bill this session, and to ask the House to sit on Mondays for the remainder of the session for the transaction of Government business. The House rose at 5.30 pun, and resumed at 7.30 p.m. ! . BILLS PASSED. The River Boards Act Amendment Bill, Public Revenues Bill, and the Selectors Land Re-valuation Amendment Bill, were read a third time and passed. THE AUCTIONEERS BILL. Consideration of the amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Auctioneers Bill was postponed in consequence of Mr Seddon’s absence. THE LAND AND INCOME ASSESSMENT BILL. The Premier moved that the Land and Income Assessment Bill be recommitted, with a wiew to give the House another opportunity of considering whether savings banks should be exempt from taxation, and also for the consideration of certain other amendments. Mr Rhodes suggested that the Premier should place the companies which receive money on deposit and lend it on mortgage on the same footing as building and investment companies.

The Premier said that there were very strong reasons for making an exception in favor of building and investment societies. The Government desired to tax all companies on their income solely which the exigencies of the revenue prevented them doing this year, but he hoped to bring such a proposal down next year. The Bill was then recommitted. Mr Shera’s amendment for the exemptionof savings banks was put and lost by 27 to 30. The Premier moved to add to schedule A under the heading of “ tax on mortgages,” the following proviso :—“ That no company registered in New Zealand whose sole business is the business of a loan, building, and investment company, and the head office and management of which is situated in New Zealand, shall be liable to pay more than Is 6d income tax in the pound on income from mortgages owned by the company.” Mr a Rhodes asked whether this was meant to apply to the income those companies got, or the total amount of interest they received. The Premier said that it applied to the total income of the companies.

Messrs Rhodes, Fish, McKenzie (Clutha), and Dr Newman opposed the proviso on the ground that it was Itogether in favor of the banks and large Companies,

The Premier pointed out that the Government would get £3OOO or £4OOO more from the banks by the now taxation than they obtained under the property tax. All he wanted to do by the present proviso was to protect depositors (who already would pay the income tax) from paying twice over. Mr Duthie contended that the effect of this proviso would be the establishment t|

a whole system of loan societies all over the country in consequence of the exemption they would have. - After further discussion the Premier’s proviso was carried by 36 to 18. The Premier moved to insert the following in the clause defining a mortgage instead of the present clause : —“ If any owner of land shall be required under this Act to pay tax on account of his land which may be subject to any mortgage, such owner may require the mortgagee, not being a banking company, to register in accordance with law, and if the mortgagee shall for twenty-one days after being, so required neglect to register such mortgage, he shall be liable to such owner for the tax paid on account of the mortgage, as if the mortgage had been duly registered.” The motion was agreed to. The Bill was reported with amendments and read a third time.

On the question that the Bill do now pass, Mr Fisher asked why, in the face of a Liberal Government that was in power, banks and large monetary institutions were exempted from taxation under this measure. He believed that as the Bill stood it would have a very injurious effect on the country. Mr Bryce said that the preparation of the Bill was so crude and imperfect that even now, after all the debate that had taken place on it, people were still unable to understand it. Believing that the Bill would materially injure the colony, he wished to enter his protest against its passing. Sir John Hall, speaking at some length, said that the taxation proposed by the Government would put a decided check on industrial pursuits', and judging by the speeches which had been delivered on the Government side of. the House, this new taxation was only an instalment compared with what was to follow. The Government, in fact, had almost apologised to their supporters for not having gone further. [Mr W. P. Reeves: “In the direction of exempting improvement ? ” Mr McKenzie: “No, in the direction of a single tax.”] Sir John Hall said that the future of property in this colony was so threatening that he could not possibly advise anyone to come here and settle*; in fact, he should feel strongly inclined to get out of it every sixpence that he could, so that if Mr Buchanan were to be blamed becauce he felt inclined to leave the colony owing to the taxation proposals he (Sir John Hall) must be included as having the same desire.

Captain Russell pointed out that the inevitable result pf this Bill would be that large land-owners wonld be compelled to reduce labor on their properties, and cut down wages to the extent of £4OO or £SOO per year. Mr Rhodes, Mr Mackenzie (Clutha), Mr Buchanan, Mr George Hutchison, Mr Buckland, and Mr Duthie spoke against the Bill. Mr Lawry was not altogether pleased with the Bill, but felt that any change in the incidence of taxation must be a change for the better. He should therefore vote for the Bill. [Left sitting at 2 a.m.]