The Daily Telegraph SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1882.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3481, 2 September 1882, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1882.

It is reported that Mr W. C. Smith, M.H.R., has induced the Colonial Treasurer to insert the following clause in the Rating Bill:—" That the exemptions under this Act shall not be held to apply to any lands, whether they are under native or other title, which are in the beneficial occupation of any person not belonging to the native race." The object of tbe above clause ia obvious. At the last sitting of the Assessment Court for the district of Porangahau some extensive areas of native lands occupied by European leaseholders escaped the payment of county rates under the existing Act by reason of those lands not having passed the Native Lands Court. As a mere matter of justice

the whole of the county of Waipawa situated on the coast to the south of Porangahau should be exempt from local taxation. From Porangahau southwards there is not the semblance of road or j bridge; the country is in exactly the same condition as it was before New Zealand was colonised so far as regards the result of expenditure of public money. The settlers, having no roads, are compelled to ship their produce from the coast, and tbey receive their stores by the same precarious route. They have derived no benefit whatever from county administration ; the very name of " local government " is to them a sham and a delusion ; and they only know of colonial public works by having to pay increased taxation. As showing the remarkable inconsistency of Mr Smith—always provided that he did induce the Colonial Treasurer to insert the new clause quoted above in the Rating Bill—we extract the following from Hansard. Speaking on the subject of local rating for public works, Mr Smith said :—" The Hawke's Bay district has one main trunk line. It has no branch lines whatever. Consequently the people who have proper- : ties through which that main line passes have had those properties increased in value. It may be said that they never asked for the line, but the fact remains that their properties have been increased in value by it, while other districts, some a long distance away, do not use that railway at all, and are still in the same position as they were twenty or thirty years ago—without any good roads, or any bridges, or any other advantages from the public expenditure. They naturally object to pay the taxation towards the interest on those lines that have only benefited the properties of people who pay no more than they do who receive no benefit. I have brought this question under notice lately, particularly with reference to the East Coast, Makaretu, and Hampden districts. The people in all these large districts have received no benefit from the large public works expenditure of the colony. They have no roads, and their rivers are still unbridged, aB they were when the settlers first went there. Of course people so situated are dissatisfied with the piesent system, and they say that the property tax was put on purposely to pay the interest on the public works expenditure, from which they received no benefit." Now, every word of Mr Smith's speech that we have quoted applies equally as strongly to local rating within districts that have received no benefit from local expenditure as to colonial taxation on account of colonial expenditure. In fact, it may be said with truth that there is not a property in New Zealand that has not benefited in some way, directly or indirectly, by the public works and immigration policy. By that policy the population of tbe colony has been largely added to, not only by immigrants brought out by Government, but by monied men attracted here by the prosecution of that policy. The expenditure of several millions of money in public works naturally attracted attention to this country, and induced capitalijts to settle here who otherwise would never have thought of coming to these shores. It is not attempted to be denied that properties within districts where that expenditure was going on did largely increase in value ; nor will it be contradicted that in many cases those properties changed owners at that increased value, and fell into the hands of new comers who had come out to invest capital in so flourishing a country that it could afford to enter upon such a policy. But it is idle to say that there was no reflection of that great prosperity in outlying districts that had not participated in the expenditure of public money. The value of land was raised in every part of the colony, and sums of money were borrowed on estates, situated in the most remote districts, which previously to the public works policy would have represented three times the value of the property. We therefore hold that Mr Smith's argument is altogether fallacious in its application to the property tax, but perfectly correct as regards local taxation. The settlers within districts like South Porangahau and Wainui naturally object to pay county rates that go to swell a county revenue which is wholly expended to benefit other districts. But they do not object to pay the property tax, because the expenditure of the loans which necessitated that tax has to more or less extent indirectly benefited them. And to speak more personally : Mr Smith has never wearied in urging tbe increase of taxation upon those landed properties that have derived direct benefit from the public works. We would, however, point out that probably no settler has secured more solid advantage from the public works and immigration expenditure than the smaller class of up-country storekeeper. Probably we are within the mark when we say that more than half the money thus spent in the colony filtered through the hands of the storekeeper, and when money filters in that way a very good deal of it gets left behind to swell a bank account. Now, we should like to know, what special taxation Mr Smith pays for the very solid benefits he has derived since 1872 —since a portion of the first loan was spent in Hawke's Bay ? He has not invested his gains largely in land, so he escapes to that extent the County and Road Board rates ; and he has acknowledged from his place in the House of Representatives that he does not pay any property tax as he adds the amount to the value of his stores, and so makes the poor hard-working consumer pay it. On bis own showing the storekeeper can only be likened to the lily "it toils not, neither does it spin," and what is much worse it does not pay taxes.