EVENING SITTING.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2980, 3 September 1878, Page 2

EVENING SITTING.

• , MoDclay. The House resumed at 7.30 to-night. Progress was reported on the .Disquali fication Bill.

THE LAND TAX BILL. The debate on the Land Tax Bill was continued.

Mr Wakefield said he would criticise with, considerable frankness all the financial proposals of the Government. 'It appeared to him that the speech of the Treasurer was one long apology (or his bill, and one part of his speech was inconsistent with another. The hon. gentleman first deprecated the objections raised by land owners, and later on ho informed the House that they had. received the approval of the land-owners themselves. H|e ventured to say that the Land i'ax Bill, as now before the House, was purely an after-thought, and certainly not more than a month or two- old. This was not the policy first propounded by (.lie Treasurer at Mar ton "— that was a scheme to tax land at so much per acre, but no.freehold, until it came, up to 320 acres, was to be taxed at all. That was less than three months

i agd;'-'--.:\V rhafc'tfiey-:'fWcre given now was thu Solicy of (lie A(.lorneyi?ouieral al; Dunein. Wo won'diH 1 the bon. gentleman apologised. The policy was not his, and his heart was not in it. He must protest auairst tl'is cramming down their throats of new kinde of taxes, which had never been proved or even tesled. rl'he bon. gentleman quoted in support of his argument a number of foreign authorities, but it would be as sensible to take the opinions of those men on our affairs as to take the opinion of our legislators on English affairs. Taking the Treasurer's I policy as a whole, he considered it unsatisfactory, calculated to create clasa distinctions, and oppress local industries. I As to the exemption of land of the unimproved value of £500, he considered the term an absurdity; he definition was too vague. Hi 1 objected to the exemption of any land in the colony. They were told the land tax was modelled on the principle of the income tux at Home ; but was it not a constant grievance at Home that the income tax was ft class tax, and not one which affected all. Yet the hon. • gentleman said this 'was ' not a class tax. He was struck with astonishment at.the proposal of fixing the minimum price of land at one pound per acre. Why, to the settlers north of Auckland such a tax Would prove a burdensome rent. This, in itself was proof of Us crudeness. Then, whoever heard of such a lax as that of making tenants of the Crown pay a tax to the Crown ? The Canterbury licensees, who had no tenure whatever (because any person could' buy the land over their heads), were placed in the same position as the licensees of Otago, who had a tenure. The hon. gentleman ridiculed I the alterations -of the tariff as like keeping a chandler's shop and eaining nothing .a year. The beer tax was singularly ' unfair. It all fell on the brewers. His ! ;beer was not only taxed, but he had to keep an extra clerk to help to collect the tax, besides the employment of a policeman who should by right be doing something else. He opposed the tax on Joint Slock Companies. It the beer tax was" calculated to make people sober the other would make money tight. It could have no other effect than driving foreign capital out of the country. It wps a tax on 'local enterprises, as well as on the savings of people invested in the s-ittv* way. Yet those who lent money by itens of thousands on mortgage were allowed (o go free. As to reducing the tax on sugar, why not lake it off altogether ? The- same remarks, would apply to the tea duty. It >us betteivto strike all the Ux off one article than complicate ma.ters by reducing the tax on two or three things. Then, how silly "waß the tax on sparkling wines ; why not lax all wines ? Then, as, to the boot (ax, the T-'e .surer quo'ed an invoice to' show thai, the result of the specific tax was the same as the result of ad valorem. What WB3 the meaning of such ah argument as that? There could be no question that' the boot f.ax would fall heavily upon the working man. Altogether it appepred as if Ihe poor woiking man was going' to catch it all round. He could only ''characterise the Government policy as harassing and troublesome, and without any result to wai-rant it. They.were told that the policy of the Government was free trade, and they struck off the little bit of prolectioj the farmers enjoyed, in ' the shape of a fax on flour, while- that on I timber wa3 not. That seemed to,him as if the Ticasurer had the idea of securing two* or three Northern votes-. But why these, taxes at all ? They were not in want of money. Why, if the hon. members for Egmont had last session, brought down such a policy witii the qpposilion then in existance his life would hardly have been safe. The hon. gentleman spoke highly of the Public Works Policy, but considered that: of ~ the Treasurer as unworthy of the Ministry He condemned the mode in which the Government took away the land fund, and then subsidised local bodies, and then took away from th&m for charitable aid. It woul I be much simpler in the >fi«-st instance to give away less in subsidies instead of increasing the taxes. The colony was now for the first time for many years in a position to adjust its finances without any fresh taxation. Let them abandon subsidies, and they could place tieir finance on a good .basis. He did not make these remarks out .of hostility to the Guvernment as a whole, because last session he we at to considerable trouble to place the present Government in power. He did so, too, at considerable personal sacrifice, and he,was only anxious to see them a united Government. He .would, therefore, move the" insertion of the words, after that —" I hat while this House is of opinion that the necessities of the colony require further revenue, direct taxation should be resorted to, and it is of opinion that such taxation should not be adopted while subsidies in aid are paid from the consolidated fund."