WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24.

Otago Witness, Issue 1949, 2 July 1891, Page 17

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24.

On the House of Representatives resuming at 7.30 p.m., Mr SCOBIE MACKENZIE resumed the debate on the Financial Statement. He said, although he had not given a very exhaustive study to the Statement now before them, he still thought it necessary to occupy the time of the House to some extent. On that occasion he did not propose to reply to the vigorous speech made by the Postmaster-general last night beyond what he found occasion to do in the course of his remarks. It was not altogether requisite in a debate of this kind to reply to the arguments on the other side, and he thought it well occasionally to travel outside that line. He related that although he had nofc given a very .exhaustive study to the Statement, he had really been in possession of the Financial Statement for two months past owing to his reading a series of' articles in the Wanganui Herald. He would like to ask what was the reason for the change made in our finance in the Statement, and he wished to know whether that finance had broken down. He wished to point out to some hon. members that the large surplus claimed by the Government of £257,000 was with one small exception the result of the financial policy they were about to abandon, and not owing to the present finance of the Government. What, then, was the reason for abandoning the policy of the past, which had resulted so well, as the present Statement showed. If the property tax was such a curse to the country as the Minister for Lands stated at Palmerston South— why, if that tax was a tax on improvements, did the Govern-; ment propose to put a larger tax on improve* ments ? He wanted to know from hon. members opposite how the Financial Statement in any one particular assisted the working classes of this colony. If Sir George Grey, for instance, could show him that the policy would assist the industrial classes although he would not promise to vote for it, he should give it much greater sonsideration. How was it that a Government which professed to be friends of the working man did not make the slightest effort to reduce the customs duties. The Postmaster-general bad told them last night that ie was no use tinkering with the customs duties, as if ;they could not reduce the duties on tea and sugar, which specially affected the working classes. He challenged any unprejudiced person to disprove the fact that the policy brought down by the Government would increase the burdens on the heads of the industrial classes. The pretended policy of Government was to break up large estates, and when that took place and the money was all gone where would they get funds from to carry on with? Why, from the customs duties. It. had always done so in the past and would ba made to do so in future, much to the detriment of the , working classes. He twitted Mr Ward' with stating that the reduction of postage of £40,000, which was really taken off the shoulders of merchants, and retail traders of the colony, would be a relief to the working classes. He had never heard snch an argument used. Penny postage no doubt was a very good thing, provided they could afford it, whioh he contended was not the case. He went on to say that the new finance was also supposed to rectify inequalities, but no single Minister had condescended to explain why there should be such an enormous difference in the tax paid by professional classes and that paid by traders. The income derived from traders was four or five times more than that by professions, and he failed to see why such an extraordinary difference should be made between the two. Why was this policy introduced at all ? The whole motive was in order to get three or four votes from Auckland. But if he knew anything of the character of the men, the Government was not likely to get those votes.. This, then, was the reason why the policy had been introduced, a policy whioh the Premier, himself declared 12 months ago could not possibly be brought in, and it was simply done to secure half a dozen northern votes, and to keep the present Gorernment in office longer than they otherwise wonld remain in power. He objected to the property tax as much as anyone, but he ventured to prophesy that when they came to collect the income tax and to show the account books of their trades and businesses, there wonld be a huge outcry against the inquisitorial character of the income tax. The Government would also find to their cost that fraud would be perpetrated in all directions, and. it was a well known fact that _in England. millions of money escaped taxation owing to, the income tax. It would also be found that those newspapers and members who now cried . so loudly against the property tax would before very long denounce the income tax much more loudly than they did the property tax. With respect to the policy of bursting up large estates, he was not personally concerned in that in any way, as, be was a leaseholder, and he disliked large estates as much las any member in the House. He had, however, no hesitation in deolaring that after people had honestly paid for their land at the market price of the day and improved it, an indirect process which levied money upon them for the purpose of breaking up their land was dishonest, and a country could, not be expected to flourish under it. In referring ■to the composition of the Ministry, he pointed out that the present Minister for Lands had last year in the House stated that unionism must be crushed out, and that unionß could not have two masters. — (Mr Reeves: No, no.) He could prove it from Hansard. Then the Government had as their Attorney-general the representative in the colony of the Globo Assets Company, and that being so they were not likely to have a bursting up policy, although they made a great pretence of doing so. Then they were told last night that a large amount of money was in the banks, and what was the cause of that? Simply because people were afraid to invest it in this colony. The polioy of the Government was a policy of taxation. The property tax remained with the whole of its evils, plus a great many more that had existed before. Referring to Mr Reeves' remark last night that owners of large estates were social pests, he said a statement of that kind would be reprehensible coming from an ordinary member of the House, but coming from a Minister of the Crown, charged with responsibility, it was deserving of the severest reprehension. Coming to the administration of the Government he referred to the appointment of Mr Ritchie, and said that if it was necessary to go outside the service Mr Ritobie, as far as be knew, was a very good man, and Mr M'Kerizie's motives were pure. He took exception, however, to Mr M'Kenrie's remark that there was not a suitable man in the service for the appointment. That was cruel on the civil service and a blow to the department. It was perfectly well known that there were plenty of mea in the service better qualified than Mr Ritobie for the position. There was a mere serious matter, however, to deal with in connec* tion with the appointment of Mr Duncan Campball ranger at Inveroargill, appointed by the Minister for Lands, which was utterly discredit* able in every way. He read the report of the case ia which Campbell was concerned >a regard

I to a certain section in whioh two orphan children were also interested, and denounced Campbell's conduct in that matter in very strong terms. > Was this the sort of man to be in the public service ? It would be a soandal for the House if it allowed that kind of thing to 'go on in the service. They had heard a great deal about Judge Edwards' appointment, and yet they were to have men of the kind he had referred to in the public service of the colony. The Minister for Lands went about the country very diligently catching dummies. He (Mr Maokenzie) thought it was not really the dummy he was after but the Conservatives. He asked the Government in all friendliness to take back their statement and come down to the House with something honest in its stead. Let them take baok their polioy, throw off the mask of spurious Liberalism and reproduce it in a perfectly honest form. Let j them come out and tell the true facts of the case, and endeavour honestly and truly to help the prosperity of the working olasses by helping the country in which they lived, and by a reduc- ! tion of taxation all round, so as to relieve the hardens of the whole community. Mr SAUNDESS said the ipeeches delivered by the last speaker were generally very easy to reply to. He had carefully abstained from finance in the remarks he had made, but he (Mr 'Saunders) would endeavour to refer Jbo it more fully. He denied that the country had possessed a surplus for last year. Surpluses were generally made up by civil servants, but if an honest balance sheet were prepared, it would be found that they had half a million deficit instead of a surplus. When Mr Ballance was reading his Statement he said he was sure the House would be glad to hear of such a large surplus. He (Mr Saunders) did not know what the House ' thought of the matter, but as for himself he was very sorry to hear ib, as he had been of opinion that a change was about to be made in the system of keeping accounts instituted by Sic J. Vogel. It hai been said that he had stated he would support the Government if their finance came up to his expectation- He had never made any such statements. Any Government that satisfied him in that respect would j have a very short life. He hoped, however, tbat they would some day have honest finance, and he was sure that day would come, although perhaps not in his time. As to the last speaker's remarks about bursting up large estates, he could only say that when that took place the revenue would come in much better than at present. He defended the proposal to reduce postage, and said it was one of those wise steps which they wanted to see more of in this country. They were spending a great deal in the education of the young, and. they should afford young people every opportunity of corresponding with each other. He agreed with Mr Mackenzie in his remarks as .to the difference between professional and traders' incomes, To his mind it was a distinction without a difference, and he failed to see why a difference should be made. He should support the Government, beoause he believed they were honestly trying to work for the benefit of the country, and he should oppose them as soon as they ceased to strive for that object. He also agreed with Mr Maokenzie that the Government ought not to appropriate the Sinking fund ; but how many years had that been, going on by the hon. gentleman's own party ? They were told by Mr Maoarthur that the Government had been ungenerous to their predecessors, but that was not likely to happen, and he thought the contrary had been the case. He objected to farmers being taxed too heavily, and said if the Government were to err, it should be on the side of taxing towns heavily, as no great harm would result from people leaving town, but if the farmers left the country it would be a much more serious matter. -He was averse to people holding large estates, but in dealing with them, they should remember that ' the land was honestly bought, and they should inflict as little injustice as possible. ; The present proposals, he thought, were exceedingly moderate. After referring at some length to the taxation proposals, he defended the action of the Government in -not bringing down their bills before the debate took place. He, for one, should be much disappointed if the Government did not regard it worth while to take notice of some suggestions he might make. He was glad this debate had taken place, and he thought the proposals of Government if carried would be beneficial to the country. Mr BUCKLAND, referring to Mr Saunders' remarks about the sinking fund, reminded the' House that it was a former Government of which Mr Ballanoe was a member that had first seized the sinking fund, and he hoped they would hear no more about that from members on the Ministerial side of the House. He refused altogether to give the Government credit for effecting retrenchment and acting up to their pledges. Individual Ministers had run through the country in special trains and coaches to banquets and dinners, and yet they were a retrenching Ministry. He noticed in the Statement that great credit was taken for a large surplus, yet, instead of disposing of the surplus by remitting taxation, they actually proposed to put on more taxation. A reduction of postage rates was all very well ia its way, but he disagreed with the idea to reduce these at the expense of the working classes of the colony. He ventured to say that the people of the colony would bitterly remember it against the present Government if they did not set apart the surplus for a reduction of taxation instead of spending it on all kinds of fanciful experiments. He strongly condemned Mr Seddon's utterances j when on a late visit to the norbh, aud said the Minister for Public Works wan not justified in forcing a candidate on the people of Te Aroha. Threats of tbat kind were not Liberalism, but very unfair. He quoted from a speech made by Mr Reeves to his constituents of Christcburcb, when he said he opposed the property tax because it drove capital away, and they wanted capital. He also quoted from a speeoh lately made by Mr Ward in which he said it was impossible to abolish the property tax, and yet he last night bitterly denounced that tix as a fearful blot on their statute books. He denied that the proposals of the Government would tend to the settlement of the land. Under the plea of abolishing the property tax they in reality continued that tax under another name, and in that respect they kept up the political fraud they were practising on the people of the colony. He strongly condemned the taxation proposals, and said he opposed the property tax — more, probably, than any other member in the House. In j looking for a change of taxation, however, he did not expect to see something more objection- ! able in its plaoe. The Government wouid have to answer for that to the country. He regarded the tbtalisator tax most decidedly as legalising gambling, and the Government knew that when they proposed it. The Government were taking credit for retrenchment where there was no retve&chtnent, and took credit for abolishing the property tax when they were doing nothing of the kind.

Mr SMITH (New Plymouth) said he was de*. termined to vote for the Government who intended to kill such a monster aa the property tax, and he considered the financial proposals were the programme for the colony. Mr HAR&NESS moved the adjournment of the debate.— Agreed to. $he House cose at midnight