GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Kumara Times, Issue 2583, 2 October 1884, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. GOLD DUTY ABOLITION BILL. _ The following is the coucluding portion of the speech of the member for Kumara on the Gold Duty Abolition Bill, taken from Hansard :

Mr Seddon : Then, I would ask, as to the miners of to-day, how do they contribute to the State in indirect taxation as compared with those engaged in other employments? I think the late Colonial Treasurer must admit that, taking the average per head of the population of the West Coast, which is exclusively a mining district, they pay considerably more in indirect taxation than do the same number of people in any other district, and, consequently, there is a considerable profit to the State under that heading. Now, in 1870 the gold duty was reduced by 6d per ounce, the first reduction, I believe, that was made in New Zealand. Well, I take the average earnings of the miners in 1870, and I find that they were £4 per week per man, as against £1 6s 6d now; and, if the Legislature in 1870 thought that relief should be given by taking off 6 per ounce when the men were earning £4 per week, I claim that the duty should be altogether abolished now, when they are only earning £1 6s 6d a week. There is another reason that can be shown why we should give this relief. I think a comparison of the Goldfields Report of last year with that made three year 3 previously would show that we should give this relief. There has been a falling-off of four thousand men on our goldfields within the last three years, aud I think that when we have so serious a falling-off as that, it is high time the State should make inquiry into the cause; and I think the cause would be found to be simply through your putting so heavy an imposition on the gold-mining industry that men, in despair, leave the goldfields and have to seek employment elsewhere, or perhaps leave the colony. Most of these four thousand men have left the colony, aud have gone to other colonies, where they receive justice at the hands of the Legislature. The Premier said that this gold duty was a royalty, and that the gold-miners are as fairly compelled to pay this royalty as the companies engaged in winning coal or auy other minerals that have to pay royalty. The Hon. the Premier forgets this one fact: that at the present time the goldminer.s are paying, for the land from which they extract the gold, a rent or royalty of from £25 to £IOO per acre. I will prove that, Sir, to the Premier, and to this House. Each gold-miner has-to pay £1 per year for his miner's right. How long would it take an individual miner to work out an acre of land ? By a return that was compiled at the request of the late Premier, Sir Frederick Whitaker, it was proved that not one acre ot the auriferous land in New Zealand had been worked without paying the State L 25. The way that fact was arrived at was this : The total number of acres of auriferous land that had been worked was fouud, and compared with the total number of miners'rights taken out; and thus it was found that a royalty had been paid to- the State of L 25 an acre for that land. In the Goldfields Report of last year it will be found the Government tell the country the auriferous lands are valued and they yield from £IOOO to L3OOO an acre. Well, if the miners are only earning an average of L7l 16s per year, and the auriferous lands are giving from £IOOO to £3OOO an acre, yon can divide the £IOOO to £3OOO by the number of miners employed :<n ! the ground they work year, ami that will pr..v« the amount of loyally or rem u.. atiuerb pay the

State for the use of its amifevous land. Ts there any other land in New Zealand that gives the same royalty to the State, and the same or corresponding advantages ? I say, emphatically, No. I believe the land at Kumara that now constitutes the best goldfields in New Zealand was open for sale for ten years, and could be bought for £1 an acre during that time. Although it is only 1000 acres in extent, yet for working it £BOOO has been paid in miners' rights alone ; and it will take another ten or twelve years before the land cao be worked out. The land was worth nothing before it was worked by the miners. Tt was offered for years by the Provincial Cauncil at 10s an acre, and no one would touch it. The same remark will apply to Reefton. There was simply a mountain of slate where you have now a thriving town, supporting hundreds of inhabitants for many years, and which has done much towards settling that part of the Coast. Therefore it can be conclusively proved that, outside the gold duty, a sufficient, and more than sufficient, royalty is paid already to the State by the gold-miner. In conclusion, I think it is necessary I should point out to the House the relative position of the two measures relating to gold-mining that are now before it. It may be said that by the Mines Act Amendment Bill—the object of which is the reduction of the miner's right and the business license fees—that the goldfields members are asking too much from the Legislature at one time. In explanation of the position, I may say that the two Bills would give relief in different directions. First of all, the abolition of the gold duty would not give relief to the business people on the goldfields, who are paying too much for their business licenses; and, consequently, an amended Mines Act is necessary in that respect. Then, as regards the miners' rights, I would point out to the Houae the difference between the relief given in that respect and that by the abolition of the gold duty. The abolition of the duty gives relief to the mining companies as well as to the ordinary miner. That is why the amended Mines Bill was introduced by myself ; and it is for this House to say, with the two measures before ic, what quantum of relief shall be given. lam quite willing to accede to the wishes of the House and of the goldfields members on the Bill I have introduced, and I will not in any way allow that measure to impede the progress of the Bill now before the House. My desire is to sec that relief is given. I had, indeed, fully hoped that the present Govern- i ment would see their way to-night to say that they would give relief to the miners. But no doubt financial troubles stare them in the face, and they think the local bodies will clamour to them for money in lieu of that we take away by abolishing the gold duty. I say that you will not stop the administration of local affairs on the goldfields of New Zealand by abolishing the gold duty. The local bodies will continue to exist, and will still continue the waste and extravagance that now characterise many of them. They will still go on paying county chairmen and county solicitors £3OO a year, and large travelling expenses of members. You should say that county chairmen should not be paid these large salaries, and that the other extravagances should not contiuue : and there yon have at once the money we take away from the local bodies by passiug this Bill. You will not stop local government on the goldfields by passing this Bill, but you may drive away good hard-working colonists by refusing to pass it. That is the difference; and the question arises, To which of the two should we give the preference ? I say at once, give it ko the miner. Pass the Bill,' and local government will go on all the same, and you will keep the best class of men in the country. This is the reason why I strongly support this Bill. I must say at once that I believe on this occasion the goldfields members are unanimous, and I believe the Government would do well if they would grant the request of the goldfields members. Sir, I have great pleasure in earnestly supporting this Bill.