Parliamentary.

Waikato Times, Volume XII, Issue 968, 5 September 1878, Page 2

Parliamentary.

HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. [press agency.] Monday, the land tax. 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 anpeared to h»m that the speech of the Treusurer was one long apology for his Bill, arid one part of his speech was inconsistent with another. He ventured to say th||. the Land Tax Bill, as now befpzefthe House, was pure|yA»afterthou|fit^certain'ly noli' moreg|]fan 4%V>nth BI two of|?' This was iw| the.|iolicy nrs|propo^Mded by the Tslgasure||at Ma|ifc<jn. TJkafc wal^ scuem^Pjt!*^ 6 MW at s^nfuch^M acre, bufr?no freehold until it^camc'up to 320 acres was to be taxed at all. That was less than three months ago. ''What they ~ were $ji ven~no w was the policy of the Attorney-General at Dunediri. N© wonder the hdn. : gentle* : Battn^apologised, The«poliey.-..waß.nQk his, and, his .heart was npt. iaitv He 'must protest against' >m*s T cramming down their throats this new kind of taxes, which had never been proved or even tested. The hon. gentleman quotCj(lvlnHUp|K>rt:<)i}; hi^areftMehtsfa uumber of foreign autharitiesrbVt it would be as , sensible to take the 6pinions of th6se men on' 'our aflaifsTas to take the opinion of our legislators on English ._, affairs.. Taking the, Treasurer's policy as a whole, he considered; it unsatisfactory, .calculated to create distinction, anof oppress local industries.,, As- ,tp the exemption of land of the unira proved value^ of: £500, j he considered the, term an absurdity, the definition was t<n vague. He objected' to. the exemption of 'any land m the colony. They ' were told' the land tax was modelled jon the princi pie of the income tax athome. But was it not a constant grievance at home that the income tax was a' class tax, not one which' affepted all.;' Yot the hon gentleman said this was 1 not a class tax He was struck with astonishment at the proposal of fixing the minimum price of land at £1 per acre. Why to the settlers north of Auckland' such a tax would prove a burdensome rent. This m itself was proof of its crudeness. Then, who ever heard of such a tax as that, of , making tenants of the Grown pay tax to the Crown ? The Canterbury licenoees, who l had no J? n ?*? wlmt'-ver (because any person could Iray the Jand over their Beads) were placed m the same position as the hcencees of Qt-go, who had- a tenure. The fconv g^tlemanxridiculei Jthe alterations of the tariff as like keeping a chandler s shop, and earning nothing $ Ft F V* % %*& ta > x F¥ singularly unr fair.' *f all fell on the orTwers^ H&eer was not only taxed, but he had to feep an extra cterk.ito;/ help to collect the tax, besides the employment of a pohceman, ; w.ho should by rights, be doing something 'else, < He 1 opposed r the' tax on joint stock companies. If the beer tax ,wm calculated to make people .sober, the other would make money tight. ' ft could have no other: effect , than drive foreign capital out of tho country, and put a tax on local enterprise;*, & well as on the savings of the people invested m the same way. Yot.those who lent money by tens of thousands on mortgage were allowed to go free. As to roducing the tax on sugar,— why not take it off altogether? me same remark would apply to the tea duty. Better to strike all tax off one article than complicate matters by reducing the tax on two or three things. Then, how silly was the tax on sparkling wines. Why not tax all wines ? Then, as to the tax 6n boots, the treasurer quoted an invoice to shew that the result of the specific tax was the same as that of the ad valorem. What was the meaning of such an argument as that ? There could be no question that the boot tax would fall heavily on the working man; altogether, it appeared a3 if the poor workinsr man was going to catch it all round. He could only characterise the Government policy as harassing and troublesome, and without any result to warrant it; r They were 'told, that the policy of -the.Gjoyernment was free trade, and they struck off the little bit of protection the. farmer enjoyed m the shape of a tax' on; flour, while that on timber was? not struck off.' ' ThaVseemed to him as if the Treasurer had the idea of securing two or three Northern votes. But why these taxes -at all? ; They "were not m want of money. Why, if the hon. member for Esrmont had last session brought down such a policy, with the Opposition then m existence, his life would not have been safe. The hon. gentleman highly' complimented the Public Works Policy, but considered that of the Treasurer as unworthy ef the rest of the Ministry. He considered the mode m which the Government took away the Land Fund and then subsidised local bodies, and then took away from them for charitable aid,— it would be much simpler at once to give away less m subsidies instead of increasing the taxes. The colony was now, for the first time m many years, m a position to adjust its finance without any fresh taxation. Let them abandon subsidies, and they could place their finance on a good basis. He did not make these remarks but of any hostility to the Government as a whole, because last session he went to considerable trouble to place the present Government m power. H» 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 following words, " That while this House is of opinion that when 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 m aid are paid from the cdsolidated fund." Mr McLean followed m the same strain, saying, if the Government would -withdraw their three taxing Bills, th« Opposition would help them to pass the Electoral Bill and the Estimates, and they could have another year to prepare a policy which would only offend a few classes instead of the whole population, as at present. Mr Hodgkinson would like to see the Land Fund devoted entirely to works for opening up the country, instead of being made an aid to ordinary revenue. j Mr Macfarlane, though agreeing with much that had fallen from the member for Waikouaiti, still could not vote for the amendment. As to the beer duty, instead of taking only £5,000 per year to collect, it would more likely take halt the income derived from it. He disapproved of the mode of levying the land tax, and of the way the tariff was tampered with. Dr Wallis thought that, althongh the general policy contained some good points, still their scheme of taxation was taking it off with one hand and putting? it on with the other. For all they would derive from the tax on joint stock companies, they might as well not have had it, except for the principle which it embodied. It vras a first step towards taxing incomos. They had an approach to a free breakfasttable, but then the tax was put on the dinner table, as m tho case of the beertax, which he entirely disapproved of. Taken with the proposal regarding the Australian wine, it meant taking: monoy from tho brewer and protecting the Australian vine-growers. Mr Girtborne moved the adjournment of the debate, and the House adjourned at 1 1.45 p.m. Tuesday, the lnd tak. Tho adjourned debate on the Land Tax Bil was resumed by Mi Gisborne

who congratulated the colony that, for the first time for many years, it was brought face to faue with the question g| finance. The hou. gentlemanffeferred to the separation scare, ajid» argued n.t some lengthr |o shewitbat 4;|e polidy of Go^rnmenl, as shewn iii§the way they|«£ealt v with landgand |$Mlwaj|| J effeo||^lly^preprincipal of the Government^proposals, he considered, was the equalisation , - of . jbhftugh^ whether it was carried ouy iv a suitable manner rtii£ht be open to disou6sion. - ,He recognised m the pro^ posals an attempt to equalise taxation. It was not class legislation. It was keeping the promise made last session, to adjust taxation so as to Make property and inoomescontjri i bute more' fairly than 1 heretofore. He would ..have preferred .that Government came down witli'an income tax^ pure and simple. The experiment had been a great success m England, and was exceedingly p'bpular, because the' tax" fell solely upon the wealthy. "While heartily agreeing with the land tax, he the Government miglit' get ; into 'difficulties m searching ' for the " unearned incremeut " ot land} and he hoped they would reconsider the matter He would like to set the Government impose some 'general <tax on people \n good circumstances, and do away with the present complicated tariff, and only levy a tax upon a few articles. He was opposed to the beer tax as inconsistent, because it affected the wages class, and he hoped it would be abandoned He, als.o, objected to the joint stock tax. But, if the Government insisted ou carrying all their taxes as | brought : down, he would bereluc-' tantly compelled to forego his objections to those twp taxes m order to see that the land tax was carried. But he hoped Government would be better advised, and modify the present' proposals. He would oppose the amendment. Mr Rowe said it was with regret he had to characterise the proposals of the Government as emineritly iUnsatiijiactory, and unworthy of the Treasurer and ; the Ministry. He would oppose the land tax. A simple plan would have been to hare' put on an income tax, which would: have yielded more than all they proposed. Mr Kelly thought the Government had not sufficiently considered the question of determining the value of unimproved land. The question, was full of complications and difficulties, and the tax would result m great injustice; to many people m the colony. He would support a second reading, but would endeavour to make amendments m committee. Major Atkiuson proposed to examine the Public Works and Financial Statement, but would first say a few words on the public! accounts of the colony. Last session the Premier and his supporters continually made charges regarding public accounts, as if there had been gross corruption m keeping' them, and, though refuted at the time, by dint of reiteration a feeling got abroad that something" verywrong had been going on, and it had been said that when the present Government mastered all the details they would discover what would prevent any of the late Ministry ever taking- office again. What had happened since 1 Why, the present Treasurer accepted all the figures and statements regarding surplus and loans that has been set down by his predecessors. This explanation was due to the late Government. The Premier, last year, when he accepted the estimates of the previous Government, said be disapproved of them, and intended to greatly reduce them, and he could save £100,000 easily. Admitting that the present Government were animated by every desire to economise m deparmental expenditure, what a testimony it was to the care of the late Government that the present one spent £7,000 more ! Instead of sarlog £100,000, the^e h\<\ been an excess of expenditure of £7000 and this year they asked for £15,000 more than had been asked f ->r by the late G overnment. He pointed ont that a sum of £73,000 of balance of loan had been carried to public revenue. There was nothing that Sir G. Grey denounced so much as carrying from loans to ordinary revenue. He did not object to this, and only pointed it oat to sho* that the late Government were not so wicked as made out. He congratulated the Government on the successful floating of the loan, but the whole credit of It was due to Sir Julius Yogel. He held that the Government had not acted rightly m sending Mr Larnach home There was no excuse for it, especially after the outcry made when Sir Julius Yogel went home. Referring to the Inscription of Stock Act, which Sir Geo. Grey described as the most impudent proposal ever made m a Legislature, he said yet Sir Georga Grey afterwards brought down the same Bill, word for word, and now it wa« the very foundation of Government finance. Every bit of credit respecting that Act was due to Sir Julius Yogel, and, when the colony had got rid of the glamour thrown over it by the Premier, it would resent the treatment of Sir Julius Yogel more than anything else done by the Premier. He considered the estimated expenditure reasonable, but the Treasurer was over-sanguine regarding the Customs revenue. Coming to the proposals of the Government last year, they were told the financial policy would be based on property and income tax. He also referred to the land tax as part of the scheme ; and an indispensable feature of the latter tax was, that no exceptions of any kind were to be made. As to the figment called "unearned increment," the hon. gentleman proceeded to show it did not touch unearned increment at all, by instaucinj? how the tax would operite on land differently situated m regard to a railway. The tax, he considered, was merely a tax upon capital invested m land Their great object was to #et land settled, and anything- burdening that, must, retard sottleraent, Take the hills round '

Nelson, Marlborough, and the north of Auckland, and say whether it was fair to tax these people the same as the holders Ajffjfta /ofiupßPßtbod inftho "bill now, it wjpj absolutely impracticable, and it w'puld break "down $ the process rf vitiation. I^eftid fi|t know whether hej,jy,ould / jote^for ;fffie 'bill; he cerHmy • wpuld no^jfote^for tlte f ameudment. H^ehtirely^di»a«pjroved of/tKe joint stock M|ps being. pMial itf its-<fperation, and, W? the land, tax, was ajific on industry. 8.4 strongly objected to the beer tax, because it was the beginning of excise duties; and as to thinking that they get "£40,000 -from" the~tax~by^aff expenditure on the collection of £5,000, that was a delusion. He disapproved of Jhe Boheme.entirely.that was embodied m the three Go verhmenFßffls7 inasmuch^ as it utterly failed to parry ou.t ,the promises of the Premier. If allowed all those to escape who lent money on mort^a^e through their lawyers'. What the Government ought to do to avoid this would be to bring m a general property tax. If principles of free^rade impelled them to the removal of the grain duty, then timber should be dealt with the same way. They did not, perhaps, increase the tax on working men's. boots, but they did on women'aand children's, Which was mdre important. It was clear that the Bill before them had never received proper consideration jor been thought out. Of course, it could not be expected it would when so much stumping was going on As to the Public Works Statement, the country would not think much of it when it was properly examined. < He utterly refused to believe m the Minister of Work s idea of constructing his railways out of surplus. It could not be done. Before they started their lines they should hare their surplus ready. Their only way was to construct their railways out of loans. Another bad feature was that outlying districts were to be taxed, but not benefited m any way. They were quite over-looked, because their voting power was weak. In reference to immigration, the very keystone of their policy, not a word was said. That was a serious omission. Then there was no provision for roads. Districts were to have no power to borrow or rate themselves, and yet they were expected to make their own roaas. He could not help believing that thePremierand Minister of Works contemplated, either the restoration of Provincialism or separation. The accusation had never been definitely denied by any member of the Ministry. If the Minister of Works, or Attorney-General would assure him they abandoned any such idea, he would be satisfied. He deprecated the 1 way ' the Government pounced upon the land fund m the Patea district? had. no proposal to make to the .House, except m general terms, that the House ought to insist upon.the imposition of an income tax, even though it was not brought into force before the end of the year. If the Government did not keep open the country roads, they would fail m their duty to the country.

Mr Stout followed Major Atkinson. He referred to the allegations made regarding Separation by saying that the only ground for making accusations of that kind was because some members had been avowed Separationists. The real truth was that the hon. gentleman was afraid to come down with a vote of ; want of confidence, but tried to weaken the Ministry m the eyes of those members opposed to Separation. That was not the way to promote unity of the colony. He ridiculed the idea of the member for Egmont not knowing whether he should vote for the Bill or not, though m the same breath he called it a sham. That was not the way he acted when m Opposition. The proper thing for the hon. member to do was, if he thought theirs a bad measure, to come down with a vote of want of confidence, and let them go to the country. That would be more becoming than caviling at small details m the policy as a whole. The hon. gentleman proceeded to examine the estimates and expenditure of the Government, to show that the deductions made by the member for Egmont were erroneous. While admitting all that. Sir Julius Yogel did for the colony by his writings, it was not fair to take away the credit that was due to other people. Had it not been for Mr Larhach, the loan would not have been so favorably floated. It was the wish of Sir Julius Yogel to have the loan floated through Rothschild, but Mr Larnach would have it floated through the Bank of England. The less the hon. gentleman said about Sir Julius Yogel the better, and if there was any lasting disgrace attached to anyone, it was not to the present Government. Was there not an understanding between the late Government and Sir Julius Yogel that he was to receive a certain percentage of the loan, and that he was to resign the Agent-Generalship? I{ appeared that all this cry about Sir Julius Yogel was with the object of getting up afeeUngof sympathy for him, m order, by that means, to weaken the Government. The hon. gentleman ridiculed the ignorance of the late Premier m calling the " unearned increment " a figment, and quoted from Cairns and Mill to explain the exact nature of the unearned increment. Land was an entirely different kind of property to any other, and required to be exceptionally dealt with, a^ was proposed m the scheme before them and always had been the case m this colony and m all parts of the old world. The hon. gentleman then gave calculations regarding the taxation of the colony, to show that the people were largely taxed for the benefit of land owners. No country m the world gave so largely for the benefit of land owners, and yet would they say that personal property "should be taxed m preference to a land tax ? It appeared to him that those who advocated that kind of tax could have no idea of what it meant. Imagine a system whereby you would be able to call upen every storekeeper, and make him give the value of everything m his stack. Even take the rwnholder, who would have to pay a tax on every sheep, and the farmer upon every head of stock, and every piece of furniture. If they taxed personal property, they would have to lower the tax upon land, and the result would be that the large land-owners would escape taxation. The tax they propose did not go so far as tax imposed by the Liberals m. Victoria. There they exempted a great deal more than was proposed here, and they did so on the ground that urban and suburban properties were already aufticienty taxed by local rates. He could not understand a property tax, but he could an income tax, though there were difficulties m the way of that. He would, however, remind the House that wherever an income tax had been imposed, it had always proved to be a failure, comparatively. The hon. gentleman defended the tax on companies. It was a tax that could easily be imposed, because the profits could be easily ascertained. In that respect companies were m a different position to private individuals. Ah to re moving the tax on grain, lie defended it on the ground that farmers did not require any protective duty, as they were now exporting grain to Australia and England. It was only struggling industries that required protection. He ventured to say that no Government that every sat m the country came down with so many measures for reform, and though these measures were unpalatable to several classes, Government were not afraid to come down with them. In conclusion, he would say Government had made up its mind on these measure, and would stand or fall by them. Ml 1 Gibbs, m criticismg 1 the Govern-

ment proposals, condemned the alterations m the tariff as little calculated to benefit the poor man. Mr Hursthouse strongly condemned the^ \ proposal of the Government. ; Considerable discussion took place on I the motion of Mr Ballance, and the House jj adjourned tiU n the^l&xt dayi jj motion ultimately wtisfwithdrawnl^nd the House adjourned at' l.2sFj iW i "■h iM : \