THE DEBENTURE TAX.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8931, 15 July 1892, Page 5

THE DEBENTURE TAX.

S6ENE IN THE HOUSE.

THE PREMIER AND THE HERALD

CORRESPONDENT.

MR. BALLANCE ATTACKED.

AN ANGRY DEBATE.

[BY TELEGRAPH.SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.] Wellington, Thursday. In the House this afternoon, a question based on an extract from the report of my interview with the Premier, which appeared in the New Zealand Herald on the 4th instant, led to a debate which occupied a considerable portion of the sitting.

The question, which was asked by Mr. Harkness, Opposition, was as follows : —

Is it true, as reported in the New Zealand Herald of 4th July, 1892, that in answer to the question, "I understand that it is your intention to bring in a Bill to relieve the English debenture - holders of double taxation The Premier gave the following reply :"Yes, I propose to bring in such a measure, to relieve debenture-holders who have money on mortgage —that is to say they will nay on their mortgages, but nothing in the shape of income tax upon their debentures. That will be a great relief to some of them. We are not at all afraid of the _ debenture-holders or mortgage companies, but we are inclined to do what we believe to be just and right."

In asking the question, Mr. Harkness said that considerable doubt had existed in certain quarters as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the taxation on English debentures, and questions had been put to the Government in the House on the subject, but without eliciting any satisfactory answer. Yet the Premier, in an interview with the special correspondent of the New Zealand Herald, was prepared to make known his policy to New Zealand and the outside world, for the information given to the representative of that journal had been telegraphed to the leading journals of Australasia, and had also been cabled to the English Press. He complained that while this information had, through the New Zealand Herald, been given to the outside world, the Premier had refused to give the same information to the House.

The Prkmikk, in answer to the question, said he could not vouch for the accuracy of what appeared in the Press. ("Oh, oh !") He had already told the House that he proposed to deal with this matter, that the Bill was in the hands of the law officers of the Crown, and that when he was able to give the House full and precise information with respect to it, he would do so. ("Oh.")

Mr. Harkness said that the answer was not at all satisfactory. Mr. Fish moved the adjournment of the House, in order to speak on the subjectHe said it appeared to him that the Premier would not give a straightforward answer to this straightforward question. Ho must know whether he meant to tax these debentureholders or not, and he ought to answer this question, so that the Opposition might be able to discuss the financial proposals of the Government. They knew that the Agent-General in London had stated to the people of England, in order to allay well - grounded apprehension with regard to this tax, that the Government did not intend to tax these debenture twice over. Now, it was an extraordinary fact that the Premier had stated in the House and country that he had given 110 instructions to the Agent-General to that effect. If so, it was amazing that the AgentGeneral should have taken upon himself to say that the Government were going to change the fundamental principle of the new policy. If they gave Mr. Perceval no instructions to make that statement, it was their duty to recall him, and to proclaim from the housetops that he had had no authority for saying what he had said. But they had not done so, and the Premier had persistently given evasive answers to questions put to him on the subject. What miserable sophistry to tell the House that the matter was in the hands of the law officers of the Crown ! They got their instructions from the Pre-mier.-and he must know what those instructions were. It appeared to him that the reason of the Premier's refusal to give the House the information asked for, was that he was not quite sure how his finances were going to turn out, and that if it did not turn out as he expected he would bring in his amended Bill at a very late period of the session, and they would find that the duplicate taxation had been retained. It was the duty of the Premier to say right out what lie meant to do, and to face the music at once. The question asked by Mr. Harkness was a plain question. Did the Premier say what the New Zealand Herald had reported him to have said. The hon. gentleman's memory was nor, so treacherous that he could not answer that question. It was only treacherous when he wanted it to he so. He must know whether he uttered the remarks which the N'fw Zealand Herald had published. Why, then, did he not say " Yes" or " No" to the question ? But it was all of a piece with what the Premier had been giving them this session. His reply in every ease had been as evasive as it could be.

Dr. Newman protested against the way the Government had held back information from the House. Why, in Heaven's name, all this mystery ?

Sir John Hall said the Premier's conduct in his matter was absolutely unprecedented. It was essential that the House should know whether the Gevernment- were going to tax ten millions or not before it could discuss the financial policy of the Government. The Premier had told the special correspondent of the low Zealand lir.UAi.D his intention, and yot on the floor of the House, where the people of Now Zealand ought to get authentic information, the Minister refused in a manner unprecedented, discourteous, and insulting to the House, to supply this information. The Speaker : That is strong language. Sir .John* Hall : It is very strong, but the circumstances appear to me to call for strong language. Mr. \V. P. Reeves, rising to a point of order, said that the word insulting " had been ruled to be unparliamentary in the House.

The Speaker said that the rule was that it was not permissible to apply to the conduct of the Government words implying trickery or unworthy proceedings ; and he thought the word " insulting " applied to any conduct of the Government was to attribute to them unworthy proceedings, and was not, therefore, permissible. Mr. Fergus : But would you not, sir, protect the House from the insults of the I'remier ?

Mr. Scobie Mackenzie pointed out to the Speaker that what Sir John Hall evidently meant was that the conduct of the Premier was insulting to the intelligence of the House, and if that was not permissible, ho did not know what was.

Sir John Hall said he would use the phrase " insulting to the feelings of the House," because that was what it was.

The Speaker ruled that the phrase was permusible. Sir John Hall said if they were not to use language attributing unworthy proceedings to the Government, then the Parlia inerttat-y vocabulary was inadequate. lb was an affront to the House to refuse to give to the Parliament of New Zealand information which had been furnished to the New Zealand Herald's correspondent who had interviewed the Premier. He was quite sure that if the Government did not feel that they were supported by a large majority, they would never dream of doing what they were doing. if there was a dody of independent members in the House, the Prime Minister would never dare to treat the Opposition in the way he had done. He had been flaunting his majority in their faces in a most unworthy manner.

The Premier denied that he had insulted the House, or had withheld information. There had never been a session or a Government where information was brought down so readily. He appealed all round the House. (Cries of "No, no," and "Yes.") What the Government had held back was information of an improper nature. If the Opposition wanted information, their proper course was to table a motion, and not to put insulting questions. The Speaker ruled that the word "insulting" was unparliamentary, and the Premier withdrew it.

Continuing, Mr. Ballance said he had a Bill in process, and the Government were prepared to deal with this question ; and when the Bill was brought down the House would see what their proposals were. A

general statement with regard to the intentions of the Government was a different thing from a precise statement of what they were going to do. The Opposition were asking too much, and the honourable member for Ellesmore, in applying coarse and insulting expressions— Sir John Hall rose to a point of order. Were such terms permissible ? The Speaker ruled that they were not. The Premier : Before I completed the sentence, the hon. gentleman rose. The Speaker : The Premier must withdraw.

The Premier : I was going to say— (Cries of " Withdraw !") The Premier said he would withdraw the words, but he wished to explain that when he used the word "insulting" (Cries " Of course.") Mr. Buchanan: I understood you, sir, to insist upon the withdrawal of the words. The Speaker : The hon. gentleman has withdrawn. Mr. Hor:r: : I rise to a point of order. I understood your ruling to be that the term "insulting" was unparliamentary when applied to the Government. (Laughter.) The Speaker : There i 3 no difference between the Government and any other person. The Premier, in concluding his remarks, said he had no intention to be discourteous, and that as soon as he had the information the Opposition would get it. Mr. Rolleston said they looked to the Government to lead the House upon a matter of order, but the Premier, in defiance of the Speaker's ruling, had twice used a word when he was directed by the Speaker to withdraw it. With regard to the main question, the Premier had kept back information not only with regard to this particular subject, but in respect to some other matters; and what information ho had vouchsafed was of such a nature as to be of little use, and to create a feeling of want of confidence in what he said. He had come to the conclusion that what Professor Tyndall said of Sir William Vernon Harcourt might be said of the Premier— that ho was " devoted in illustrating the unveracities of man." The Premier's evasive reply to the question put by Mr. Harkness was not fair to the gentleman to whom he had given this information. Was it fair when a gentlemen had met you and by common consent placed on record what you had said, to refuse to say whether you used the words recorded or not? The question the Premier was asked by Mr. Harkness was whether the words he was reported to have used were true, and to this he gave the evasive answer that lie could not vouch for what appeared in the newspapers. That was ail answer utterly unworthy of him. Mr. Hood followed, and referred to the New Zealand Herald as a journal which gave the fullest and most accurate information in the colony. Messrs. Buchanan, Taylor, and Rhodes also spoke. Mr. Alt,said as the Premier would not give a simple answer to a simple question of this kind, it was evident there must be something behind it.

Mr. Fish, in reply, characterised the Premier as a past master in the art of evasion.

The motion for adjournment was then put and negatived.