HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3588, 26 June 1880, Page 2

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Wellington, Friday. The House met at 230 to-day.

PttOPEHTY TAX.

Mr Kelly presented a petition from Taranaki praying for v modification of the Property Tax.

CIVII. SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr Hall laid the evidence of the Ciril Service Commission on the table.

Mr Mucaudrevr spoke in favor of get* ting the evidence printed. Mr Hall pointed out that it was most voluminous, and the cost would be enormous.

Mr Brown moved that it be printed ; and, after some discussion on the motion, it was withdrawn.

POWEES OF LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES

In replying to questions, it was stated that until the bill was brought down Government was not prepared to say whether, in the proposed scheme of local finance, due provision would be made to empower local boards of public works to maintain certain specified road.

PBOPERTY TAX BETITBNS.

The time for making returns under the Property Tax had been extended to the Ist of August.

GOLDFIELDS WARDENS,

It might be inconvenient to make a general bill for the periodical removal of Wardens and Magistrates at least every three years.

EXTBA CUSTOMS DUTIES.

Government did not expect to receive any revenue from the extra customs duties on imported beer for the financial year 18801. BILLS. Bills introduced and read :— G old Duties Abolition, Registration of Dentists, and Heathcote Bridges.

THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

Debate resumed by Mr Beeves. He condemned the Property Tax, and never expected to have seen it brought into operation. A better plan for meeting the emergency would be to impose a halfpenny on wool washed and greasy. It would realise us a sum of £150,000; besides it would increase labour, as all the wool would be washed. Another impost he suggested was a duty of 5s per ton on coal; that would yield £40,000, and would aid in developing the local mines. The proposal to abolish subsidies was most unfair, as most local bodies were committed to engagements on the distinct understanding that they would extend over a period of 5 years. Mr Russell as a member coming from the same district as the member for Clive, could not agree with much he had stated. He could not agree with the suggestion that the best way to deal with the Civil Service would be to knock off £250,000. That was far too sweeping a proposal. He commended the Treasurer for the courage he had displayed in setting forth the true state of the case, uninviting as the subject no doubt was. He regarded the finance proposals as a whole as being for the welfare of the colony. He approved of the Property Tax, and considered it a slur on the industrial classes to say that the tax would hamper them. He was opposed to the Beer Tax, and thought it would be better if they had stuck to the Property Tax, as originally adopted. Mr Stewart said the more the financial proposals were considered the more inexplicable they seemed to be. With anything like decent management the prosperity of the colony was bound to return. The Property Tax was essentially inquisitorial. It struck at precarious as well as fixed incomes, and a tax of that kind was sure to retard enterprise. Chopping and changing about from one tax to another, as they were doing, was calculated to aggravate the evils of taxation. If the tax was insisted upon they might just as well proclaim the colony a sheep run, as that was sure to be its outcome.

Mr Mason agreed that the education vote should be reduced so as to provide only for primary education. Mr Hursthouse opposed the amend* men t of no confidence. -

Debate interrupted by 5.30 adjourn ment.