GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10420, 24 July 1895, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

lIOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES,

TUESDAY, JULY 23. The House met at 2.30 p.m. QUESTIONS. Replying to Mr Hall-Jones, The. Hon. R. J. SEDDON said he was informed by the Registrar-ge D eral that it would be ueolcs'j to amend the Census Act so as to ascertain thi actual number of males ovor 18 who aro unemployed. The. time the return would take to compile would not give any accurate idea or be a fait test of those out of employment, and tho expense would not be commensurate with the information obtained. Replying to Mr W. Hutchison, The Hon. R. J. SEDDON said the Government wer* doing their bjst to cope with tbe unemployed difficulty. It was a question of administration rather than of legislation. Tho Government thought the proper course waa to pat people on the land, and as the number of men employed on tho alternate system was about 700 he thought the Government could not bs charged with doing uothiug. Replying to Mr Flatman',

.The Hon. J. M'KfcJNZIE said the question of eitablishing two farm homes—one in the North and one in the Middle Island—for the purpose of lindiut» work for tha uuemployed was worfc'i consideration, and he hoped to be able to stato later ou whether anything could be dona.

R-.plying to the Hon. W. J. Steward, The "Hon. Sir CADMAN said free railway pisses had been abolished, and he could uot soe his way to relax the system in case of cleri'Ymon travelling by rail on Sunday duty or during 'Sittings of .syuod. Replying to Mr Meredith, ■ The Hou. J. R. SEDDON said he believed the periodical removal of police sergeants and coustables wi,s dc-arable, and ho was going iuto the whole question very fully. : He hoped members would, assist him, and would not protest when any particular officer was removed.

Replying to Mr Allen, who asked upon whose authority, amd for what, purpoce. and at what date, were securities,., being ."£494,300 debentures under "'ibe Consolidated Stock Act 1894," belonging to the Government Life Insurance department, forwarded to Londou,

The Hon. J. G. WARD' said they were forwarded,by authority of the Government,on the llth October' 1893, aud after tho receipt of a confidential communication from the Agentgeneral referring to the uneasiness created in London by the bank failures in Australia, R«plyiug to Mr Flatman, The lion. J. G. WARD said tho dsla'ys that had hicberto occurred respecting advances under the Advances to Settlers Act would be remedied in future,'but it would be too cumbrous to appoint provincial boards. Replying to Mr Mills, The Hou. J M'KENZIE. said mulberry tree 3 hid beeu planted at Momohaka, and no doubt the Government would eventually be in a position to st-irt the cultivation of raw silk. Replying to Mr Fraser, The.Hon. A. J. CADMAN said the matter of allowing concessions to all bands attending the band contest at Timaru. was'under consideration. Replying to Mr Montgomery, who asked whether uudef the Advances to Bett!ecs Act tbe mortgage tax will be paid by the mortgagor— i a.,, the State—to the ordinary revenue account, or whether such tax will not ba charged at all.

The Hon. J. G. WARD said the mortgage tax will not be collected this year, and- he thought tho question might stand over for further consideration.

Replying to Mr Flatman, who asked whether tbe Miuister for Labour will amend the " Employers' Liability Acfc ,1891" with a view to preventing employers from deducting money from tho wagei of their employees for accident insurance, ,

The Hon. W. P. REEVES said there'was a bill on the Order Paper which he hoped would have ifee effect asked for.

Replying to Mr Dntlne, The Hon. J. G. WARD was sorcy he could not agree to a reduction in the mileage charges of telephones in cities and suburbs.

Implying to Mr Massey, , The Hon. R. J. SEDDON said the present Government had not interfered unduly in elections or more than previous Governments had ; but tho Corrupt Practices Bill jwould be shortly .before the House, and Mr Massey conld, if he chofc, move an amendment to the effect that Ministers making offvrs or promises to electors with the object of influencing an election shall be guilty of corrupt practices. Re-plying to Mr'G.'W. Russell, who asked whr-ther the Auglo-Japancs^ treaty has been forwarded to the Government by the Imperial Government for the approval of Parliament, The Hon. J. G. WARD said the Government had received the treaty, ■ bat ■ they would nofc arrive at a hahty decision on it. When tfcey did'so he should• inform .tha House of,their intentions. , ' Replying to Mr Buddo,

The Hon. J.G. WARD said the Government had heard nothing of a proposal by the farmers' associations to send a delegate to China, Japan, and Eastern Asia, and therefore could not say whether they would contribute a portion of the expense of the delegate. Rsplyipg to Mr G, Hutchison, The Hon. J. M'KENZIE eaid an amending Impounding Act would.be brought down this session, when an opportunity would be afforded of defining the driving_ fees which may be properly demanded for cattlo seized at sams distance from a public pound. Replying to Mr Carnell,

The Hon. R. J.: SEDDON said, the Government did. not deoire to take out of the honourable gentleman's bands the pleasure attendant ou the introduction of a bill to repeal section 46 of "The Gaming and Lotteries Acfc 1881." , Replying to Mr Hogg, The Hon. ,J. G; WARD Said'he did not think it desirable to interfere with the Lending Board so as to' get the applications of aggrieved settlers reconsidered by tho full hoard.

Replying fco Mr G. Hntihison, . The Hon. J. G. WARD said-he'was. willing to have the wbo'e question of the valuation fees under The Advances to Settlers Act fully considered.

' Replying to Mr J. W.-Kelly," r _ The Hon. J. G. WARD said he should inquire into tha,rfa?oh for want of administration of the Sea Fisheries Act respecting; the registration of fishing craCt. " Replying ta Mr Pirani, ; , ; The Hon. J;; MCKENZIE said careful inquiries had been made, and it hael been fonnd undesirable to remove the restrictions, from- tho importation of grapes. ; Replying to Mr. Hogg, ,: ~ The Hon.. J. .M'KENZIE said itwas nob correct thas co-operative labourers nnder the Land and Survey department were cot allowed •to earn more than £1 16s par, week., '. Replying to Mr Allen, The Hon. J. G..WARD said the persons appointsd as the custodians of the Pnblic Trust Office securities and Post Office securities in New Zealand and in London* were the Public. Trustee md the chief clerk- of the Public Trust Office, also Messrs W. Gray, E. Gray, and W. R. Morris, in Wellington; and the Agent-general, Measra Kennaway and Palliser in Loudon.

Mr.ALLEN moved the adjournment of the House, and complained of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies given by Mr Ward to his two questions. The Treasurer had said: that 'tho?e securities were sent to London oa the authority of the Government, but he asked whether three persons who had charge of those fecurities were forced by,the Government to give their consent. He held the House was entitled to much more information on the whole subject tban the Treasurer had given. '~, After some discusnion, .-V.

The Hon. J. G. WARD said he had replied to the questions put by Mr Alien correctly, a!nd said 3 the hon. gentleman acensad him of making misleading statements, when' the fact was: that Mr Allen did. not make himself acquainted with the subject at all. The trusteed appointed for the Public Trust and Post Office securities were appointed by the act. He.asserted agaiu that the whole of the securities sent Home were under three keys of custodians.

The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment.

EVENING SITTING. : The House resumed at .7.30. | -.'-.: BILLS PASSED. j Tho Family "Homes Protection Bill, the Criminal Code Act Amendment Bill, the Adoption of Children BUI, and the Aucklaud and Parnell Endowment Lands Bill were read a third time and passed. - | MINING COMPANIES. The Hon. A. J. CADMAN moved the second ! reading of The Mining Companies Act 1834 Amendment Bill to enable miuing compinim to dispose of their properties^ to Euglish capilalijts. He said the rscent mining boom in Aucklaud rendered ths bill necessary, and ho hoped it would be allowed to pass. Agreed to. UNDESIBABI.E IMMIGRANTS. The Hon. Mr SEDDON moved formally the second reading of the Asiatic and Other Immigration Restriction Bill. Agreed to, and fche bill was referred to ths Labour Bills Committee. ■FEJfCI'NO BILL. The Hon. J. M'KENZIE moved the second reading of the Fencing Bill, which was mainly a consolidating set aod related tothe erection and repair of dividing and rabbit-proof fences. The bill repealed several other acts, (md he thought the House would s«-e the necessity of consolidating the law in this matter. The bill for the first time related to Native lands, the titk to wbich has not been determined. The bill also defined tbat the act was not to apply to unalisnated Crowu lands, which was a useful provision if applied to Crown tcranrs, who wculd be ablrt to'pay iuterest on the h.-.if cost of the erection of a (ence. The bill further gave cower to the land-boards of the colony to

declared that rabbit fences were substantial improvements within the moaning of thn act. Tbe bill for the firat tima sho declared that a rabbit-proof fMica may be a tagal fence. If tho bill passed iti second roading now, ho should refer it to the Stock Committee for its consideratiou.

Mr FRASER did not oppose the biU ns be waa convinced of the abaolute necessity of erecting rabbit-proof fences if they were to cope with the rabbit Difficulty. He pointed ont, however, that tho cosfc of erecting these fences was a serious consideration, aud he thought the cosb of netting should be brought withiu the reach of rich and poor. If this bill p-issed any man might oompsl his neighbour to erect a wire uniting fence, and be thought some assistance should be given to peoplo who were unable to treet such a fence.

Mr THOMPSON hoped that if this bill passed some provision would bo made to ensure both pArties paying in tho case of adjoining land owne i by Buropaiiim and Natives.

Mr HEKE said the bill provided for Native lands.

Mr PIRANI thought it should bo mado plaifa iii the bill that the Natives should contribute tbeir cost of fencing. Mr CROWTHER thought the bill would have to be altered very much before it met the requirements. A proviso f>hould be inserted iv the bill tbat che land of the Natives should be made responsible for a fair proportion of the fencing. Tho Hon. J. M'KENZIE said, with respect to Mr Fraser's objection, that his opinion was that, however small an owner a man might be, ifc would be a very g<od thing for him if he wero compelled to as.-ist in the erection of a wiro urtting feoco. —(Mr Phaser : " Suppose hs could not pay?") Well, in that case a proviso might be inserted in tho bill that a man who was likely to suffer any damage might go before the magistrates and make a declaration that ho was unable to pay his share, and that could be takeu in mitigation of his offence. The bill was read a second time and referred to the Stock Committeo.

ANIMALS PBOTECTION BILL. The Hon. R. SEDDON moved the second reading of the Animals Protection Bill, which, he said, was to prevent reptiles being introduced into New Zealand. The Hon. E. MITCHELSON said some clause should bo inserted providing for the strict enforcement of the same laws. The Hon. R. SEDDON said he should provide for that. The motion wss agreed .to. LAW OF EVIDENCE. Tho Evidence Further Amendment Bill was further considered in Committee. The Hon. W. P. REEVES moved to strike out clause 9, which made confessions of prisoner* to minister's of religion privileged. ' The clause was retained by. 30 to 27, The bill was reported, read a third time, and passed. BATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES. The Hon J.- G. WARD moved the sfcond reading ot The Rating on Unimproved "Value Bill, to authorife the rating ou unimproved value of land. He said the bill had, evoked a large amount of tboupht, but he" contended it had been agreed that the arguments in favour of the bill largely prevailed over these against it. After describing the provisions of I the bill he said they were very much the same a-i last year, and the main principle of it was. as to whether it was detirable to levy taxation on improved land or not, and whether local bodies should not be allowed to levy rates on unimproved values if they chose to do 60. The bill would certainly prevent a large quantity of land, being allowed to remain idle, as was at piewrnt the cass in many places. One great objectiou to tbe bill was that.it would assist the wealthier clauses, but be did -not agree with that objection. He should, after hearing the objections against the bill, be prepared to consider them.

Mr DUTHIE objected to the bill, and said the Houso should dacide the question as to whether or not rates, should be levied on the improved value of land. He thought itf was not advisable that local bodies should huve the option ol deciding the matter by a poll, wbich would also entail expense on them. He imnginsd the main object of the bill was to compel people to make improvements on their properties, but he thought they should cease to harass people in the manner proposed by the bill. He thought no reasons had been put before the House for a bill of this kind, and he should oppose it.

Mr THOMPSON said no doubfc a large number of people in the colnDy denirod a bill of this kind to pass, but be thought it a pity it waa not kept hack till the Local Government Bill was before them. The weakest part of the biil was the clause compelling local bodies to take a poll, which would entail great expense on those bodies. He should support the second reading.

.- The Hon. R. J. SEDDON ssid the House and country'had affirmed the desirability of an ameudment in regard to our rating law. The principle of this ■hill, was introduced in 1893, and should commend itself to every member cf the House and lo those more particularly who wished to refer matters to the people. An alteration was' made in the bill thab instead of letting the Commissioner of Taxes impose taxation the local bodies should themselves do it. He.admitted tint they bad no right to compel people to make improvements, but he thought Mr "Duthie would admit, that there were those who acted like tho dog in the manger, and kept a town back through their refusing to make any improvements, and it was surely not unfair on such a man to make him, pay his share of such improvements as mw.ht be mads in such a town. He held that it was only right that those who were able to pay should bo made to pay, and it was found at present that it was the small farmer and the struggling settler'who paid most of the rates. If members would look into the question they would see how glaringly unjuit the present; system of rating was. He pointed out that in the case of larger farmers the rates'were about £5 au acre, whorea* in an adjoining smaller farm thsy paid £7 or £8. Great injuotice was dove in many cases to smaller owner*, and it was time some change was made. As,to Mr Duthie's obj'iction to leaving the power of taxation to the local bodins, he pointed out that in the principal act of 1382 it was optional for tho owners to say whether they would rate at the capital value or .on the leviable value. He held that bill hsd nobhing at all to do with the Government bill, aud if they had matters Qf this kind in that bill they would not g-t through it in 12 months. The question was, whatever local bodies may exist, the principle of taxation should be left to them, and that was outftide the Local Government Bill altogether. He hop=d that the bill mighc become law this session, aa he felt satisfied thpy were very much behind in this respect. The Government had no desire in this biU to compel people to make improvements whohad no means to do so, and they did not want to make a coutiscatory measure.

Mr BUCHANAN thought the hill wits'an attempt to inflict great injustice on a large number of property- o .vuers in town and country, and that it would tend to dishonesty by making psople misrepresent the value of their property and improvements. He strongly opposed it, as he thought the Legislature should not encourage dishonesty. Mr MACKINTOSH supported the bill, and said it should not be optional in country districts, but should not be made compulsory in towns. He held that improvements should uot be taxed on any consideration.

Mr BUTTON supported the bill, bnt considered there was a great difference between raUag for lecal purposes and rating for general government purposes. He regarded the property tax as the fairest tax that had been imposed. He was committed to the principle or this bill as far back as 1876, when he had moved it in the House. At the time, amongst those who opposed it was the late Mr Ballance, and amongst those who supported it were Sir G. Grey and Sir R Stout.

Mr BUDDO supported the bill, and oaid, the present system was simply, a tas on improvements. It was manifestly unfair that large farmers should get off at - the expense of small farmers. They must encourage settlers to improve and should not har thosn improvements by raising the rating value. He failed to see how, Mr Buchanan could urge that the bill would encourage dishonesty.

Dr NEWMAN supported the bill, bit said ii wonld require several amendments. He thought the bill would be very good in settled and unsettled districts, and he hoped it would become lav/. Unless there were considerable modifications, however, the local bodies would not take advantage of it, and it might become a dead letter.

Mr G. W. RUSSELL supported the bill, but thought it would be very much in favour of the farmers of larae properties and against the owners of small properties. H« thought there was not the slightest chance of peop'.a in large cities bringing the bill into operation as it would press unfairly on large buildings in chits. Ha referred to saveral defects in tho bill, especially as relating to the poll. If the bill were to be mandatory and not optional, he should vote against it, but aa it stood he should support tin second reading. Mr MEREDITH waa in favour of the bill, and considered the House agreed to its principle three years ago. ■ He regarded the property tax, either for local or general purposes, as wrong, and said it taxed the energies of the people.

Mr ALLEN said the Premier told them the bill was principally aimed at tha people who held large sections of unoccupied land in cities and boroughs, but ho (Mr Allen) thought there were very few peopie in that position. He did not deny that large banks aud large buildings should be made to pay taxation. He quoted !i?™. a return prepared" by tho town cl«rk of vyeJJiDgton on this bill, which he srtated would c-ecio.<se the tax-stion qf Wellington City by 3 I'or cent. Xhe Premier had told them tbat small nhops and sins.ll cottages were to have their taxa'ion doubled, whilst large ones wonld

escape, but iE that was the aim of the demooracy it was a new one to him. He should oppose tb« bill.

Sir R. STOUT did not think if (he biU pasted into law it would bo fair to country lands unless they wow classified. The bill should bo called one to make the owners of poor land pay more taxation tban the owners of good land. Thtn, as to town lands, returna should have been put before the House showing the improved value of town lands. They had had two returns from Invercargill ond Wellington which showed that tbe improvements in Invercargill were more relatively to the value of the land, than in Wellington. Tbe Invercargill raturn proved tbat the middle classes of that place would pay tbo same as now, whilst , the banks, mercantile classes, and hotels would pay from two-thirds to ahalf lees than at present, while every small man would pay an additional rate from 6 per cent, up to 100 per cent. The Wellington return.showed that good buildiugs would p»y moro rates, whilst in. .several instances thu offices, banks, aod hotels would pay lo3s and dwelling houses of rich and poor, it they had any land attached, would pay from 40 toalOO per cent. more. This bill, co f*r as the citiea were concerned, was n most pernicious measure, and was directly counter to what should be the aim of local taxation, hy crowding peoplo into small spaces and encouraging them to build in confined areas. They wera aho not only caating the whole of _ tho charitable aid rate on the land, but they were providing that large and expensive buildings should not contribute anytlirg towards the charitable aid rate.-. If the House affirmed that wealth should not contribute to ™c P00! -J**? Ib would be opposed to the ideas ot. all Liberal statesmen of the present age. lhe bill would tend to create slums in cities, and would encourage people to put buildißgs on every square inch of land. Mr J. W. KELLY pointed out that the bill -was purely optional, and therefore no ratepayer would, accept: it, as it would inflict a greater amount of taxation on bim than at present. * : He characterised the statement respecting . the Invercargill Borough as a partial one, and. said ha was prepared, in order tp see such a grand principle os this bill contained made law, to pay as a small owner.more than he paid already Mr STEVENS combated Sir R. Stout's arguments, arid thought the'weakest part of the bill was that it, was permissible instead of compulßoi-y.

. 'Mr O'REGAN supported the bill, and would like to see it mandatory: , Mr WILLIS alao supported the bill The Hon.,Capf,a.in RUSSELL aaid he had always advocated that racing, like taxation, should be on wealth. He. disapproved of ,the bill because of.-:its optional character and also because when they were told tbey were tp have a Local Government: Biil it seemed to him better that they should \vait till the whole question was before the House. It seemed to him .that unimproved value was a purely arbitrary term, bsoause the bill deSned that "improvements" do not include the reclamation -of -land from-water, which ho regarded as &fmost valuable improvement, and instanced the cases of Wellington snd Napier.iin proof of his argument. .. ;He considered that the exemption of ; improvements would . prove S-'racsfc beneficial to towns and injurious to country, and this bill would do a hardship to the man they were all anxious .-to encourage—namely, the pioneer 6ettler. It Beemed r to "him that the whole principle of this bill was that they were going to tax the speculative owner, whereas it would i work out very differently.-', I 'Mr M'NAB moved the adjournment of the debate;— Agreed to. The House rose at 12.40 a;m.