MR. BUCHANAN ON THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT BILL.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2097, 17 September 1885, Page 2

MR. BUCHANAN ON THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT BILL.

The following is the Hansard report of 'Mr Buchanan's' speech on • the above Bill

. A good many honourable members may be jjf opinion that it is inadvisable to raise-any large debate upon the second reading of this Bill, because any alterations that may be made in the Bill from the law as it now exists can be disposed of in Committee. I agree with the honourable member for Sehvyn in his conclusion that the large question of a land-tax versus a property-tax is fully raised in this Bill. We have the authority of the Premier himself for that. As I understand it, the avowed object of the alteration proposed in clauses 18 and 19 is this : to smooth the way for the reimposition of a land-tax such as we had in years gone by. On every occasion when I have spoken on this question, both in this Houae and to my constituents, I have always opposed a land-tax in the strongest possible manner, and have held that, of the many systems of direct taxation, the property-tax is about the fairest one that can be adopted. As to the £SOO exemption, which has just been referred to by the honourable member for Gladstone, I was always in favour of that exemption until now. 1 held that a sufficient amount of money was raised by the property-tax with that exemption for the necessities of the Country. But, taking the stage at which we have now arrived, I think it may fairly be argued whether the exemption should not be lowered. For my part I have not quite made up my mind whether it ought to be so or not, but I think, in the present position of our finances, it is quite an open question. But I hold altogether different views with regard to the exemptions proposed in this Bill by clause 18. It commences by exempting all agricultural implements in actual use, and all agricultural improvements tho property of one person or company to a value not exoeeding £3OOO. Now, I am an occupier of land myself, I have invested largely in improvements, and have made a considerable expenditure on agricultural implements; but, although I believe as strongly as any member of this House that the prosperity of the country depends largely on the encouragement of settlement on land, 1 cannot see that tke State is justified in proposing such an exemption as this.' I think thßt agricultural implements and improvements on land have no more claim to exemption than investments in capital of any other description of industry. If, for instance, it is fair to impose a land tax, and if one of the reasons given for the imposition of a land tax be the benefits which the rail- . ways have conferred upon the land, surely these very benefits apply equally to the improvements upon 'the land, These exemptions also, I presumo, are supposed to encourage theputting-of improvements on the land; but I think there is a very considerable fallaoy underlying such a contention, if the question is properly examined, I will put a case to illustrate my meaning. Ten or twenty years ago, we- will suppose, a settler invested in forty acres of land, and in the course of those years he has spent a large amount of money in felling the bush, clearing the stumps, and erecting fences and buildings, The value of that property has been increased by these means from, perhaps, £1 to £2 an acre, its original value, until it iB now worth LlO or L2O an acre. Under this clause, improvements of this description will be exempted up to the amount of L3OOO, and the greater portion of his property will therefore go untaxed. But we will suppose that this settler chooses to sell his forty acres, and, in order to find room for his growing family, invests his capital in a laiver acreage of unimproved land. What happens now ? As soon as he does this he is immediately taxed on every shilling he has got. In other words, by means of this clause, which is supposed to be an encouragement to put people on the waste lands, a man iB immediately taxed as soon as he moves in that direction, I hold that, from this point of view, instead of encouraging settlement it is bound to have,

in many cases, the veiy reverse effect, Those are the grounds upon-whichl should strongly opppse 'the exemptions proposed under ,ihd' I' hope; that when the Bill comes into Committee the Qovernment; : wil.l, not make strong epposition to their. withilrawol.V '