ABOLITION OF GOLD DUTIES BILL.

Grey River Argus, Volume 21, Issue 3133, 27 August 1878, Page 2

ABOLITION OF GOLD DUTIES BILL.

In the House of Representatives on the 15th August — Mr George moved the second reading of the Gold Duty Abolition Bill. He considered the duty evil, as it was essentially a clas3 tax, and moat unjust, inasmuch as the gold miner was exceptionally taxed as compared with other classes. Besides the gold duty, the miner had to pay extra if he took out a lease or built a battery, as well as his miner's right fee. Often the gold tax and others represented the profits on mining undertakings. It was especially unfair when it was remembered that Government has announced in their Financial Statement that still another tax was to be placed npon jointstock companies — that is, a tax for the privilege of commencing to mine, and a tax upon any profits the miner might make. Mr Gisborne seconded the motion. He opposed the tax on the ground of political economy. That it was inadvisable to put a tax on any of the industrial exports of the Colony. The cheaper they could produce gold, the more they could get in exchange for it. The time had passed when exceptional charges were entailed upon the Government by new mining communities starting into existence. At present they had become settled down, and become stable communities ; and therefore they required no more special expenditure than any other class" amongst the people of the Colony. Still, he thought the tax might be made permissive, so that if any particular mining community did not wish to abolish the tax they might retain it. Mr Stout said this was asking the House to vote away the funds of localities. He looked at it more in the light |of a royalty than a ' tax. Of course it rested with the counties what action should be taken. He thought a clause might be introduced in the Bill when in committee, making it optional with the counties whether they abolished the tax or not. Mr Manders would have to oppose the Bill, inasmuch as it was not shown how the counties were going to recoup themselves if they abolished this tax.§ Messrs J oyce and^Brown supported the Bill. Mr Pyke would support the Bill if he felt certain that miners would get any benefit from the abolition at all ; but they would not. It would only be the ■ companies and the banks who would reap the benefit of abolishing the tax. They must bear this in mind : That a compact had Ibeen made between Government and the counties in this matter, and if this tax was abolished, a tax would have to be imposed on mining machinery. It was manifestly better to tax productive capital than unproductive. Practically ho maintained that the gold duty was already abolished, and the tax under consideration was merely imposed to ie3ch a class who could not be reached in any other way. He had asked his own constituents if they wished the tax removed, but they were perfectly apathetic over the matter. It was said that wool was not taxed, but the wool grower would be quite satisfied to pay a tax on wool, provided his property remained untaxed, : as with miners. Mr Barff strongly supported the Bill, and argued at some length to show the i injustice of this special tax. '. Mr Woolcock supported the Bill. He pointedout what a great deal gold mining s had done for the Colony as a whole. He < argued, therefore, that it was to the in- ] terest of the Colony to fostei so beneficial ! an industry. \ Mr Rowe asked how miners were io be j made to contribute to the cost cf icain- '. taining roads in mining districts i ! the i tax was abolished. The roads were made for, and were used by, the mhars, i md them only. The duty on. gold wa j

the only thing they had to depend upon, for public works of the district in which he came from. In fact, without these road 3, the quartz miners would be shut up, and industry would cease. He moved that the Bill be read that day six months. Mr Saunders opposed the Bill. To abolish the tax, they must impose another, which in all probability would entail a cost of 40 or 50 per cent, for collection. Mr De Lautour thought the aim of the House ought to be to disspecialise the mining interest. Miners should be placed on precisely the same footing as any other class of trade or calling in the Colony. It was the constant efforts of gold-field members in endeavoring to obtain special privileges for miners that excited the jealousy of people other than miners. Mr George having replied, Mr Whitaker pointed out that when the duty was imposed, it was laid down in the Rating Act that mining machinery and other kinds of plant were exempt, and if the duty were now abolished, and miners were to be rated, then the Rating Act would require to be amended. A division was taken, and the Bill was thrown out by 35 to 34. Mr Pyke voted for the Bill.