FINANCIAL DEBATE.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 193, 15 August 1889, Page 2

FINANCIAL DEBATE.

MR MOSS'S AMENDMENT. -

(BY TELEGRAPH. —SPECIAL REPORTER.)

Wellington, this day. The debate on the Property Tax Asaeas...jnent Acb Amendment Bill and Mr Moss's amendment on that still drags its weary length along. There is no brilliancy about the speeches on whatever side the speakers rank :themselves. They merely repeat statements and reiterate arguments that have on many occasions already been brought forward, and that are being reiterated and reiterated during the present debate. Mr Blake, who resumed at 3 o'clock, when the debate was again taken up, said the Government were not entitled to much credit for the small surplus which they showed after such favourable circumBtances; but they were entitled to credit for being the first Government that had bottomed our public debt. He condemned the property tax, as it pressed very heavily on_people in his district (Avon). In voting for the amendment he did nob consider he •was voting for aland and income tax, as he Was opposed to such a tax. Mr Samuel said that though on the present occasion he must vote against the party with which he had been associated, and with whom he hoped to act again, on the present issue he must support the Government. He had nob changed, his opinion as to the oppressive nature of the property tax, but his political experience convinced him that no change could be " 'made in that mode of taxation which would return the same amount of revenue, and he agreed with the Premier that a land and income tax would certainly not return anything like thesameamiount without pressing With very greatharshnes3 onalargeportionof the country. When he entered Parliament, he was determined to do all in his power to abolish the property tax, but he was now convinced that to substitute a land and income tax for it would have a much more disastrous effect; and he was , compelled to admit that the property tax ifor revenue purposes was the fairest that could be imposed. Mr Kerr agreed that a land and income tax would be more oppressive than the property tax, but the latter, under proper conditions, could be made much more acceptable than it was at present, lfc should be.altered so as to make its incidence less unjust. He adversely criticised the Government policy, and strongly objected to the proposals for constructing the Otago Central railway out of the trust funds. Mr Goldie made an onslaught upon the Civil Service, particularly naming the heads of the Department who were the real rulers of the country. Ho objected to the utterincapacityof Ministers, who had to leave the table and make an appeal to the civil servants behind the Speaker's chair upon the most trivial affairs. He blamed the Government for delaying the .promised reform ot the Civil Service, and attributed the delay to the influence of the service. Notwithstanding that the Premier promised last year to reduce the cost of the service to the lowest possible extent, he was found this year advooabing increases of salary. The House should be doubly careful lest with the return-of increased prosperity there should be a return to unwise or unnecessary expenditure. He was very much disappointed at Mr Bal- , lance's proposals of borrowing. What the country really wanted was rest from further borrowing. (Hear, hear,) The ,policy of carrying on railways to a paying point was an endless one, and .the only thing for the country was to cease borrowing altogether. (Hear, hear.) He strongly condemned the Otago Central, and thePremier'sproposed dealings with the trust funds and also the Puhipuhi tramway. These he declared were proposals to catch votes. In conclusion he declared his sup.port of Mr Moss's amendment—nob to change the Government, but to obtain a dissolution. At theeveningsitting, Dr. Newman, while deprecating any change in the incidence of taxation, criticised the policy of the Government at length, and was particularly severe on their proposals for the North Island Trunk Railway. He dealt at some length with the Financial Statement, pointing out what he considered many mistakes. Mr W..P. Reeves followed him, and in a long but interesting speech made a vigorous onslaught on the policy of the Government, and replied severally to the general statements made by the Premier in his speech. Mr F. Mackenzie, who followed, defended the Government, his speech lasting until the adjournment at a quarter to eleven ; the major part being devoted to a defence of the property tax. WHAT WILL THE DIVISION BE? There has Keen considerable speculation as to what the result of the division will be. It is freely stated that when the debate opened the Opposition had a majority, and that the Government whips have made the most of the interval and have now secured a bare majority. The Opposition challenge this majority, but I am inclined to think it exists. The following is the pricking of the card according to the Government whips: — 'Government, 47 : Messrs Allen, Anderson, Atkinson, Brown, Bruce, Buchanan, Bux--fcon, Carroll, Cowan, Dodson, Fergus, Fish, Tultcn, Graham, Hall, Hamlin, Hislop, Hobbs, Hodgkinson, Humphries, Izard, Jackson, Macarthur, Scobie Mackenzie, J. Mackenzie, Merchant, Macgregor, Mills, Mitchelson, Moat, Newman, Ormond, Pyke, Rhodes, C. F. Richardson, Russell, Ross, Samvfel, Saunders, Seymour, Stuart, Menteath, Taipua, Tanner, R. Thompson, Valentine, Whyte and Wilson. 'Opposition, 44: Messrs Ballancs, Barron, Blake, Cadman, Duncan, Feldwick, Fisher,, Titchett, Fitzherbert, Fraf?er, Goldie, Grey, Grimmond, Guinness, Hutchison, Jones, Joyce, Kelly, Kerr, Lance, Larnach, Lawry, Loughrey, J. Mackenzie, Monk, Moss, O'Cohor, Parata, Perceval, R. Beeves, W. P. Reeves, E. Richardson, "Seddon, Smith; Stewart, Downie Stuarb, "Taiwhanga, Taylor, T. Thompson, Turnbull, Verrall, Walker,* Ward, Withy.. Uncertain, Harkness, making a total of 92. '■'Me'sare Beetham, Peacock (away from the colony), and Sir G. M. O Rorke make up the 95 members. Seeing that this is the anticipation of the Government, it will be recognised that the division will be a very close one.

THE "POST'S" CRITICISM.

The "Post" last evening had a leader upon the financial debate. Ib auys :—" The only speeches yet delivered in the debate which call for any special notice are those of Mr Ballance and the Premier. The former appears to have caused some disappointment; why, we are not quite sure. It was, we think, a very able criticism of the general financial policy of the Ministry, and ib lost nothing of its force by being couched in studiously moderate words. It was a speech quite worthy of the occasion and of the speaker's position. Some people profess to be disappointed because the leaderofthe Opposition did not unreservedly condemn the property tax, and hold out a prospect of an immediate and total repeal. Mr Ballance would have acted foolishly and wrongly in doing anything of the ■kind. It would be absurd for him to pledge himself to an impossibility, and as such we regard the total abolition of the property tax. He correctly interprets the feeling of the country when he advocates such a system of taxation as shall fairly tax all sources of wealth, and at the same time encourage settlement." Speaking of what our taxation should be, the "Post" declares what is wanted is an equitable readjustment of the burden of taxation amongst the entire community, •nob the sudden transference of the burden

from one set of shoulders to the other. Mr Ballance wants a general tax which will catch all who ought to contribute to the revenue of the country. Sir Harry Atkinson wants the property tax, and nothing but the property tax. Herein.lies the difference between the two politicians.

Dealing with the Premier's speech it says :—"Sir Harry delivered an exceedingly able exposition of his side of the case. It -was-on the whole, perhaps, the best speech he has made in the House for some years, and he said all he possibly could say in defence of his beloved tax. This, after all, was not very much, and he seemed to feel this, for he constantly appealed to his hearers to take his conclusions for granted, without being able to support them by facts or figures, or the process of reasoning by which he arrived at them. ' I know thie' and 'I know that 1 and '1 tell you so and so' formed a very considerable portion of his speech. Now, admitting, that from his .position and experience he does know more on the subject than any other member, it is by no means certain that on the same data obher persons equally competent to form an intelligent opinion would arrive at the conclusions. We are inclined to think that in regard to the property tax the~ Premier has not formed an independent opinion on the evidence, but has rather sought for evidence to euppcrt an opinion preconceived. He has, in fact, only considered one side of the case, and has ignored all that tells in favour of the other side. This being so, his dogmatic assertions cannot be accepted with simple faith. As a defence of the Ministerial policy, his -speech is entitled to every consideration and to high praise, but it was amusing to find him taking credit for non-borrowing proclivities. Certainly the Premier is responsible for more bori'owing, and. has had the handling of more borrowed money, than any other public man in New Zealand. His present virtue is that of the roiie, who, after years of a fast life and the enjoyment of every species of dissipation, reforms when he finds his vital energies exhausted, and that he cannot longer derive pleasure from his former pursuits. The morality of such a man la always of the most severe type when he does reform ; so is the Premier's now on the question of borrowing."