PARLIAMENT.

Inangahua Times, Volume VIII, Issue 1272, 18 July 1883, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

• « Wellington, July 17. The^ first business on the Order Paper in the House of Eepresentatives consisted of the second reading of Mr Delatour's Native Land Company's Bill. It is understood that after Mr Delatour has moved the second reading, the Colonial Treasurer will make a short speech in opposition to the Bill, pointing out that it affects the Native policy of the Government. The debate Avill probably be adjourned to a future day. On the House resuming this evening the Treasurer will, it is expected, :

put up supply, so as to enable Sir i George Prey's adverse motions, for I which the lion, member for Auckland I East gave notice some time ago, to he ! taken. These motions, it will be remembered, relate to the proposed im- 1 position of aland tax, and the taxation ! of land specially benefited by the construction of railways and other public works. The House met for the transaction of private members' business at 7-30 last evening. In the absence of the Speaker, who was ill, the chair was assumed by Mr Hamlin, Chairman of Committees. There were only two Orders of the Day on the Order Paper — viz., the second reading of the Chattels Securities hill, and the Gold Duty Abolition Bill. The second reading of the former was moved by Mr Feldwick, its author, in one or two explanatory sentences, and was agreed to without any discussion whatever. The Bill, together with certain proposed amendments thereon (the nature of which was not stated), was then referred to a Select Committee. Mr Seddon afterwards moved the second reading of the Gold Duty Abolition Bill. In ' doing so he said that since 1870 /there had been no re-s lief given to that class who were subject to this special tax. From one end of the goldfields to the other the question was now being agitated. In | the neighbouring colonies the tax had | been abolished for some years. In 1870 the average earning of the miners was £2 10s per week. During the last 8 years there had been a falling off in the gold export of £50,000 per year, and there were 2,285 fewer men engaged in mining now than there was in 1875. Unless the miners were re- , lieved from this taxation there would be a still further falling off. Were the | miners, he asked, a desirable class in '' this country ? Were they deserving of encouragement, or ought they to have obstacles thrown in their way 1 The t amount of gold exported from this Colony amounted to £39,000,000, and the duty paid t0£1,300,0u0. In 1875 ' a distinct pledge was given that the " gold duty should be treated as local f rates, and he considered that pledge j had not been carried out. For local taxation the miner paid at the present time something like £4 per head per annum ; for indirect taxation something like £10 per head per annum. In 1879 the House passed a resolution that the gold duty should be abolished, and in 1881 a Bill providing for its abolition passed its second reading, but was thrown out by the other Chamber. Last year, in the House, 3 after a similar Bill had been accorded the second reading, the Minister of Mines took exception to its committal, and by a small majority the House declared to commit the Bill. tie hoped, however, that the Government would not object to the present Bill. The Bill proposed that the duty should be reduced at the rate of Is. per annum, and only after the local bodies affected by the tax passed a resolution in favor of the Bill being brought into operation in theic district. In fact, the Bill was surrounded with every safeguard. The Minister of Mines was sorry to be again in the position of being bound to resist the abolition of the gold duty. He did not at all agree with Mr Seddon that the mining industry was decaying. It was, he believed, in a .transition state, and was assuming a very different form from that of some years past. It was true that there had been a reduction in the number of miners, but he pointed out that many of the mines had passed into different claims; moreover, lie pointed out that the revenue arising from the gold mining industry did not pass into the pockets of the Government, but into the hands of the local bodies, who spent it for the benefit of the miners themselves. The present Bill, he thought, contained provisions that would never work, but which would lead to smuggling, by making it optional on the part of the local bodies t> bring the Act into operation in the district. Then, he could not agree with Mr Seddon that this was an°uufair tax, neither did it press hardly because it only fell on those who were successful, and in proportion to their succi ss. Mr Delatour could not allow this year to pass without again raising his voice in support of the proposed abolition. The tax was one of an injurious nature, and should be swept away. He thanked Mr Seddon for the energy and zeal with which for the past few years he had persisted in pressing this matter on the attention of the Legislature. He considered that the Depart ment of Mines ought to come before Parliament every 3 ear, not only with a technical report of the doings of the previous year, but also with suggestions and recommendations calculated to foster the mining industry. He cordially supported the measure Mr Fergus combated — the contention that the miners would not benefit by the proposed abolition. On the contrary, there would be a perceptable rise in the price of gold, so far as the miner himself was concerned, and the step would result in a substantial dividend to many a poor miner. We ought to foster every individual industry in the Colony, and to abolish the gold duty would bo to encourage the gold mining industry. Mr Shaw supported the Bill on the principle that half a loaf was better thon no bread. He would have preferred that the Bill had been introduced on the simple lines that the gold duty should be abolished altogether. The tax was an unfair tax, an illogical tax, an unequal tax, and a special tax. It was a tax net upon profit or upon capital, but plainly and simply a tax upon labor. He knew of

several companies in the Inangahua District who, for every ounce of gold they got out of the earth, obtained only £d 17s. per ounce, whereas it had cost them at least £40 per ounce. The successful owner did not feel the weight of the tax, but on <the unsuccessful miner it pressed very heavily. Were the tax abolished many a company could pay a. dividend which did not now do so.' The Minister of Mines had asked the House to provide a substitute for the tax if it was removed. That was, properly speaking, the business of the Government themselves. But, for all that, he was prepared with a substitute. 'Let them return to the system which they obtained some time ago, and which he thought was fair, except in one respect. We had made our laud revenue consolidated revenue, for the Colony, and there was a provision, by which out of that 25 per cent, should be spent upon the maintenance and construction of roads throughout the Colony. The only mistake in that system was where tbe wholn land fund was consolidated the 25 per cent, must be treated as local. Let the 25 per cent, be treated as consolidated, and distributed over the Colony, and there would then be no necessity for j present special : taX> -( "--^' ■■ .^jfpjer^T*~r-p> .. ■-- - — , Mr Pish admired the unanimity of the goldfields members in regard to this question, but failed to see that they had made out any case. He accused certain of those hon. members with being insincere in their desire to see the tax abolished, and charged Mr Shaw with a special pleading on behalf of his constituency. He opposed the Bill. Mr Vunro compared Mr Fish to a Maori fish called the " Patiki," which 3iad its feeding ground in the muddy banks at the entrances to rivers. There was a peculiarity about this fibh. He said that both its eyes were on the upper side, and it was so accustomed to looking through muddy water, that when it first left its natural element it was absolutely blind. The fish moi*eover, had its sting on the lower or blind side, and so it was with the member for Dunedin South. He (Mr Munro) cordially supported the second reading. Mr Petrie said Mr Fish had twitted certain goldfield members with incon 7 sistency, but before trying to pick the mote out of other members' eyes, he should first pick out his own. Why, Mr Fish himself voted in favor of the abolition of the gold duty last year, and now he • voted against it. (MiFish : That was quite a different bill). The principle was the same in each, and provide for the abolition of the duty. He (Mr Petrie) supported the second reading, and trusted, that in spite of the opposition ofiered to it by the Ministry, the bill would at least be allowed to go into committee. Mr Smith supportedJ&e bill, expressing himself in favor of encouraging the gold anting interests' to the fullest extent.' ' Uyj- ■ Mr Macandrew said he had voted in favor of the proposed abolition for the past 15 or 16 years, and therefore did not intend to repeat his reasons for supporting the bill on the present occasion. Mr FitzGerald also supported the bill. Mr Sheehan said unless he could obtain a pledge from Mr Seddon, that he would insist; on the permissive clause, or abandon it altogether, he would oppose the second reading. Mr Duncan supported the bill, as also did Mr J. C. Brown, after which Mr Seddon replied, and in doing so, contracted a pledge to adhere to the permissive character of the bill. The question was then put, and the Minister of Mines called for a division which resulted in the second reading being carried by 21 to 17, or a majority of 4. The bill was then referred to the Goldfields Committee. The House"'" rose at 5 minutes to 11 p.m.