The Otago Witness.

Otago Witness, Issue 1970, 22 August 1889, Page 1

The Otago Witness.

With which is incohporatbi. the socthehn MEBCCBT.

IHVRBBAY, AUGVST22. 1889. THE PREMIER IN DEFENCE. The Premier's speech, is aa exceedingly effective review of the situation which should do much to precipitate the travelling aoids in the parliamentary system and re-establish the credit of the Government. It places in a strong light the utter want of practicality and of sense of responsibility in the Opposition ; proves the absolute necessity for retaining the property tax for the present ; and generally shows that, in spite of petty blundering, the Government, or at least one member of it, know what they are about, and are carrying out a policy which is sound in the "fundamentals." There have been many more eloquent speeches heard in the House, but few which have better answered their purpose and hit the requirements of the time SO well. The Government sorely needed some striking display to restore confidence in their capacity : tho House was demoralised by the weakness of the Ministry and all the winds of political doctrine let loose without any direction; the country was sick of the tiresome futility of the parliamentary proceedings, and longed for some sign of capacity. The Premier has risen to the opportunity, and brought everybody to their bearings in a speech which clearly defines the issues of the position, and makes a vigorous defence of his own policy, aa well as an overwhelming attack on tho want of policy of his opponents. The first line of defence of the property tax is the undesirability of making any change in our system 6i taxation at a time when it is so important to make no mistake in our estimates The inestimable comfort of the property tax to a Treasurer in days like these is that it- can be relied upon. Customs revenue is very variable, railway roturns fluctuate, but the receipts from the property tax are the one source of revenue which can be reckoned upon as a certainty. The second line of defence is that it is impossible to raise sufficient revenue from a Jand and income tax. A penny is the utmost that could be placed upon land, and an income tax of Is 3d in the pound would be absolutely intolerable. Imagine a man with an income of LSOO a year having to pay L3l in income tax ! Yet these impositions, the Treasurer tells us, would not come near to raising the amount obtained from the property tax, and no member of the Opposition has made any attempt to refute this statement of our most j experienced financier. Mr Ballance, ' who alone speaks with any sense of responsibility, carefully abstains from pledging himself to the abolition of the property tax — warned, no doubt, by the experience of the Stout -Vogel Government, who had all the will in the world to do away with it, but ' found the carrying out of their intentions impracticable, and even ended by proposing- to increase the tax they abhorred. That one experience is worth ! a whole page full of abstract argument on the subject. Turning to argument on the merits of the two taxes, the Premier points to the inadvisability of specially taxing the land at a time when we are specially desirous of attracting settlement ; he argues the difficulties of collecting an income tax in a country where incomes are so variable in sources and amount j he tells us he has had returns made out, which show that the substitution of a land and income for the property tax would let off the rioher men with about one-half of their present payments and lay the chief burden upon the small farmer. Then he goes on to say that he recognises the duty of

alleviating, as muoh as possibly the j burden of the property tax wherever i*. cac be Bhown to be oppressive, in proof of which he quotes the Act which forms the nominal subject of the debate, and significantly deolares that he is not wedded to the property tax if the improvement in our financial condition shall make it possible to disease an alternative with safety. The moral of all this, as we understand it, ia that if there is a big surplus next year the property tax will be reduced as much as possible in time for the General Election. What will excite almost as much at- ] tention as the Premier's argument on the property tax is his defence of his Public Works policy, and the firm stand he takes about the Otago Central Railway Construction Bill, as being an integral part of a connected scheme for " winding up," and not an isolated measure to meet an exceptional case. Surely the experience of the House must make them feel the truth of the Premier's warning as to the inevitable alternative of a renewal of the demand for borrowing. It looks as if the Government were making a genuine attempt to wind up the Public Works policy, and that is a. thing that cannot be too strongly supported. With the Otago Central, the North Island Trunk, and the North of Auckland lines disposed of, it should not be difficult to deal with the smaller claimants. Certainly the last persons to object should be ths Canterbury members, who, we feel sure, are far from endorsing the impertinences of Mr Keeves towards this province, which raust not be taken too seriously. The claim of the Otago Central railway to preferential treatment on the ground of the inexpediency of allowing the half million that has already been spent upon it to lie useless within a stone's throw of the country it was intended to open up, is irresistible by any reasonable man, even if he regards the country to be opened up as no better than that which would be made available by other unfinished lines. It is not to be supposed that after the line has been carried so far this province is to be baulked of any practical result from it, -and what the Premier says as to the effect of the rejection of the Ministerial proposals is supported alike by experience and common sense.