3Legizlatibe ~ouncH. - parliament of new south wales

1784
Patents Law Amendment.
[COUNCIL.] Land and Income Assessment.
the commissioners in the selection 0f a
magistrate; but I do not approve of the
omission of that portion of the sub-clause
which refers to clerks of petty sessions,
because I consider that seven years' experience in the office· of clerk of petty sessions is a practical training for the position of police magistrate.
Mr. A. B. PIDDINGTON: The amendment
will not exclude such men ; it will only
,
give a wide·r range of choice !
Mr. lVIcGO\-VEN : I must express my
surprise that the Chairman of Committees
should have allowed the hon. member for
Fitzroy Division to make a charge against
two or three gentlemen who are administering justice in this colony. It is a scandal
on the administration of justice if there is
a scintilla of truth in the charges which
the hon. member has made against two or
three police magistrates.
Progress reported.
House adjourned at 12·40 a.m. (Thursday).
~ouncH.
Thursday, 17 October, 1895.
3Legizlatibe
Patents L<tw Amendment Bill-L<tnd <tnd Income Assess·
ment Bill (second re<tding).
The PRESIDENT took the chair.
PATENTS LAW AMEND:L\1ENT BILL.
Bill read the third time.
LAND AND INCOME ASSESSMENT BILL.
SF.COND READING.
Debate resumed (from 16th October,
vide page 1737) on motion by the Hon. Dr.
Garran:
·
That this bill be now read the second time.
The Hon. C. G. HEYDON : I agree
with the speakers on this question who
have expressed their opinion that the
House should now read this bill a second
time. I am sure that no one will accuse
me of being favourable to the proposals of
this meo\sure, and I think that no one who
has done me the honor of watching my
course in this Chamber will accuse me of
being indifferent to the privileges, the
rights, and the duties of this House. At
[Mr . .AfcGowen.
the same time, it seems to me clear that
there must come a time when, a majority of
the electors having declared unmistakably
their view, this House must su bruit to their
wish. I listened with a great deal of regret
to the view's expressed by the bon. member,
Mr. Hoskins, on this subject last night,
because I entertain a very great respect
for that hon. member on account of his
long experience, and his high character and
reputation, but I am quite unable to agree
with the conclusion at which he arrived.
He stated, after giving many strong reasons
against the justice of this measure, that in
the fa,ce of those reasons, in the face of the
onesidedness, the unhirness, and the injudiciousness and the mischievous operation of
the taxes proposed he could not bring himself, whatever mandate was given hy the
country, to vote for it, or, as I understoocl
from him, to do anything but vote against
it. I should like to ask the hon. member
and other hon. members in this House how
far a principle of that kind can be pushed
by this Chamber 1 Are we to go on for
ever, and if it is admitted that we are not
to go on for ever, that this House was not
called into existence for the purpose of
operating as an irremovable block against
legislation desired by the country, I would
ask at what point we are to give way~
We can hardly come to a point at which it
is clearer that a mandate from the country
has been expressed than we have arrived
at now. There have been two elections in
the course of whic!J. this question of a landtax has been a prominent one. At the
election before the last it was undoubtedly
put prominently before the people, and the
people expressed a view on the whole in
favour of the tax.
The Hon. A. H. JACOB: Not with exemptions!
The Hon. C. G. HEYDON : I am not
dealing with that for the moment, because
we have power to deal with the exemptions if we read the bill a second time ;
therefore, that is not a reason for refusing
the second reading of the bill. N otwithstanding that at the election before last,
the country expressed its opinion in the
way that I have indicated, we considered
ourselves justified, in view of the particularly strong objections to these proposals,
in refusing to read the bill a second time.
'l'hen upon that, the bill was not sent up to
us again by the mme Parliament. It was.
Land and Income
[17 OcT., 1895.]
not another session of the Lower Chamber
which resulted in the same measure being
.laid before us to reconsider it, but it was
put before the country. The country was
asked again to express its opinion specifically on this question of a land-tax, and it
returned an answer which I am sure everyone will agree was in favour of the measure. I regret that as much as anybody
can possibly do. My objections to the
measure remain as strong as they were. I
have not seen them answered, or any attempt made to answer the arguments
against it addressed to this Chamber. But
there must come a time when we must bow
to the will of the people. We are not
. .created to stand alone against a majority,
and a large majority of the country. It cannot possibly be. What is our origin ~ We
are nominees. We are nominated by the
ministry of the day, by the leaders of the
other Chamber, the rulers of the country.
By them we are nominated from time to
time as occasion requires, and in this
manner this House is recruited. Can it
be supposed for a moment that with a provision like this for keeping up our number
it was intended that we should be created
absolutely to block the will of the people,
even in cases where we consider the wish
of the people is mischievous ~ I cannot
think so, and I feel myself constrained to
give way now most reluctantly and allow
the bill to be read a second time, reserving
to myself most certainly the right to do
everything I possibly can, in conjunction
with other hon. members, to improve the
bill, and make it as little unjust as such a
measure can be made. I do not wish,
upon the question of the bill itself, to repeat the arguments I used on a former
occasion, when I endeavoured to show that
this measure should be regarded as one of
the highest degree of injustice, a measure,
itl fact, of confiscation.
But before passing away from that to other matters, I
should like to put one case, which it seems
to me shows in a very marked way the unjust incidence of a proposal such as this.
'\V e know that not very long ago, when land
was at a very high value in this country,
numbersofpersons invested in land at those
high values, and purchased it to a very
considerable extent on credit, the money
advanced being secured by mortgage on
the land. Since that time land has contracted in value; but, unfortunately, the
6 A
Assessment Bill.
1785
mortgages have not contracted; and in
many cases there are persons owning land
which brings them in nothing, and staggering along with very great difficulty under
mortgages which are almost equal to the
total value of the land. Let me take the
case of a property which is worth £24,000,
and on which the land-tax would be exactly £100 a year. This land is mortgaged
to the extent of £20,000. The nominal
owner has really an interest in the land to
the extent of £4,000. He will have to pay
the mortgagee in full, or if the mortgagee ·
realises, thefirst£20,000 out of the proceeds
will have to go to him. Therefore, upon
the remaining £4,000, owned by the mortgagor, a perpetual and irredeemable mortgage, the interest on which amounts to
£100 a year, is imposed by the proposals
of the Government. It must reduce the
value of this interest by at least £2,000, so
that one half of his property is taken away
from him at a blow by this unjust measure.
I put that simply as one illustration. I repeat that I have never seen any attempt
made to answer these views. I will now
pass away to other considerations. I think
that this House and still more the country
has very great reason to complain of the
course adopted by the Government after
this bill-for it was the same bill-was rejected by this House last session. It was
not rE\jected in any offhand, careless, indeliberate manner. It was debated fully, and a
number of hon. members gave reasons of
very great weight against the measure both
as to its principle and details. It was subjected, in particular by the hon. and learned
member, Dr. MacLaurin, to a close criticism
of its details, which, I am sure, convinced
every one of his audience that in a large
number of particulars the bill was not only
susceptible of amendment, but absolutely
demanded amendment if it was to be in the
most elementary degree fair and reasonable.
It is precisely for work of that kind-critical, deliberative, considerative work-that
this House was created, and the duty of the
other House, the duty of the goYernment
of the day is to bear in mind that that is
the purpose for which this House exists,
and to consider our criticisms. Instead of
that, what was done 1 There was a dissolution of Parliament, and the Ministry went
to the country, and instead of the views of
this House having any opportunity of being
considered by the country, the ministers
Fourth nigh&;
1786
Land and Income
[COUNCIL.]
actually tied their own hands,and prevented
themselves from giving any reasonable consideration to our suggestions. It became
impossible, after this House had been denounced throughout the country as composed of persons described by the figurative
expression "fossils "-old persons whose
brains were past any useful or active work,
and influenced entirely by personal, and,
indeed, corrupt motives-after the Ministry had denounced the action of this House
through the country on these grounds, it
became impossible, when they came back
from the country, to admit that our suggestions were worthy of consideration.
And what has been the result 7 We have
had exactly the same measure sent up, notwithstanding the numberless faults of the
most serious character-which it is impossible for any reasonable man to denywhich were pointed out here. That is not
the way in which the business of the country should be carried out, nor is it the way
in which it was intended that our Constitution should operate. It paralyses. the
work of this House. What is the use of
our doing the work which we were created
to do if, by conduct of this kind, it is
rendered, not simply nugatory, but hateful
in the eyes of the people 7 I trust that the
representatives of the Ministry will bear
in mind that that is on their part a grave
dereliction of duty, that they are bound to
attend to the reasonable suggestions of
this House, that we have a right to make
amendments which are suggestions, and that
they have no right whatever to say"Wewill
not consider the amendments of the Council.
Wewilldenytheir right to make any amendments, and if any attempt is made on their
part to improve this bill, we will again
denounce them to the people, we will again
raise a constitutional crisis." The misrepresentations with which the arguments of this
Rouse were received, were gross and absolutely indefensible. The persons who made
the misrepresentations must have known
perfectly well that they were making misrepresentations, for the hon. and learned
member, Dr. MacLaurin, pointed out that
a person-a widow, as he said-receiving
a certain income from land, would be
mulcted in a certain sum per annum, and
a considerable sum in proportion to the
total income, while, he added, a member
of the Lower House, receiving exactly the
same income, would not be. mulcted in one
.[The Hon. G. G. Heydon,
Assessment Bill;
penny. That contrast was the contrast to
which his illustration was directed. The
contrast is absolutely ignored everywhere,
and the illustration was repeated in a mutilated form simply to be made the subject of
sneers and laughter, sneers which, I venture to say, disgraced those who knew at
the time that they were misrepresenting to·
a degree which amounted to deliberate
untruth, for it is quite impossible for anybo:ly who heard or read the hon. and
learned member's speech not to have seen
what the real point of his argument was.
The measure, it seems to me, is the fruit, to
a certain extent, of the propaganda which
was carried on here a shorttimeagoinfavour
of the system known as Henry George's.
When that fanatic-for he certainly deserves to be called nothing else-visited
this country, the present Premier, without committing himself in words to any
definite approval of his system, accompanied Henry George here and there, took
the chair at his meetings, and spoke in
praise certainly of the man, and by implication of his proposals. In fact, he went
as near as he possibly could, without absolutely committing himself, to applauding
the proposals put forward by that speaker
and writer. And we have as one result of
his speeches this measure of land-taxation,
as to which I admit it is very difficult to
find out upon what solid principle it is based.
We do find that it is based onHenryGeorgeism; to this extent, at any rate: that it is a
tax on the unimproved value of land. Why
exactly on the unimproved value of land
it is hard to say if it is not that the teachings of that pernicious writer have berne
slight fruit in this country-if it is not to
conciliate the few misguided people who
have taken up his theories. But to show
the inconsistency of those who bring this
measure forward, the one fair thing that
there is in Henry Georgeism-that is, that
the tax shall be imposed equally on the
whole area of the country; that it shall
spread evenly and equally over all-is rejected, and we have these iniquitous exemptions brought in for a very plain purpose, as to which I shall have something
to say. If we ask on what principle this
land-tax is proposed we get as many answers as there are persons of whom we ask
the question. The Vice-President of the
Executive Council defends the exemption on
the ground that it is a property-tax. Then
Land and Income
[17 OcT., 1895.]
I would ask, why is not all property taxed~
Why should one particular class of property be visited with a heavy tax of this
kind~ Is there any justification, is there
any fairness, if it is regarded as a propertytax, in selecting one class in the countryand that class a minority of the whole. to bear a burden which nobody else is to
bear, and still more when we find that it
is imposed upon a minority of that minority
-a very small class in the country-how
can it be justified on the ground that it
is a property-tax 1 If we ask the question
as was asked in this House of one of the
supporters of the Ministry here, the hon.
member, Mr. Pulsford, we get an altogether
different answer from him. In the course
of his speech the other night he was asked
by the bon. and learned member, Mr. R.
E. O'Connor, "On what principle do you
place the exemption in the land-tax1" And
he answered :
I place the principle of the exemptions in the
land-tax simply on the question of expediency,
and the desirability of arranging the taxation on
small owners in a way which will bring about as
little discouragement to industry as possible.
We have two admissions by the hon. member. He admits that it is expedient to
have the exemption-expedient to whom~
Expedient, I suppose, to the Ministry,
which wishes to compel the majority of the
country to tax the minority and save their
own pockets-a political expediency, for
none other has been shown. Then we have
the admission that :
It is desirable to arrange the taxation of small
owners in a way that will bring ahout as little
discouragement to industry as possible.
It appears, then, that a land-tax, after all
we have heard about it, does discourage
industry. It seems that the school of
political thinkers to which the hon. member belongs considers there is one thing
which must on no consideration be ham-.
pered, and that is trade. we must have
free-trade, but as to having free industry,
or unhampered production, that is quite a
different thing. Burdens may be heaped
· upon that to any extent. If it is admitted
that a land-tax discourages industry and
hampers protection, what is it but a protective tax~ It is protection reversed, protection turned upside down. If our own
producers are to be hampered who will
profit~
Surely the foreign producer must
profit. So that, instead of having a system
.Assessment Bill.
1787
of protection by which the local producer
is protected, and the foreign prcducer is
hampered, we are to have a system of
protection by which the foreigner may send
his goods here absolutely free, whilst the
local producer is ground down with burdens, heavy to begin with, and which probably will grow heavier as the fiscal needs
of the country increase.
TheRon. Dr. GARRAN: Which foreigner1
The Ron. C. G. HEYDON : Any
foreigner who sends his goods to this
country to sell.
The Ron. Dr. GARRAN: He may pay
the same tax already !
The Ron. C. G. HEYDON : Is there
the same tax everywhere. Of course, if
we could have an identical policy all over
the world, there might be something in the
interjection ; but we know perfectly well
that nothing of the kind exists. We know
that in other countries, some of them very
largely producing countries, countries from
which we import largely, heavy protective duties are imposed, and in others we
know that even bonuses are given upon
exports, for the purpose of enabling producers to in~ade our markets. In tl1e
face of facts like these we are to have
this inverted protection, this sort of minus
protection, imposed upon the country, by
which burdens are removed from those
who send their goods from outside, and
are imposed instead, upon our· own producers. "But," it is said, "we are removing burdens from the producer, because
the customs duties increase the cost 'Of the
articles which he purchases in order to live
and carry on his business ; and being relieved of this burden, he can afford to pay
something in the shape of a land-tax." I
will not stop to consider whether that argument is a sound one or not, but assuming
that it is a sound one, what justification is
there in it for exemptions~ If this burden
is imposed, because burdens have been removed, why should not.the burden be imposed upon all the persons from whom the
burdens have been removed~ Why should
there be this selection of a few to bear the
additional burden rendered necessary by
the remission of taxation which has been
proposed 1 I saw that the Premier the evenin()' before last set himself to answer the
qu~stion as to what was the real principle
upon which the land-tax was imposed, and
he gave various answers to it. He did not
Fourth night.
1788
Land and Income
[COUNCIL.]
bind himself down to one. It is really very
interesting to consider the grounds upon
which he, the apostle of free-trade, justifies
this tax-and I do not wish to be understood as attacking free-trade or defending protection at ali-I am simply going
to consider the Premier's consistency. He
says:
Rylstone thirty years ago was a substantial
town, and when he visited it· the o~her day he
saw no change. Two or three men owned the
whole district around there. How could this
country get towards real progress when towns
like Rylstone, Bathurst, Tamworth, and a hundred others were surrounded by vast freehold
sheep-walks? The land-tax would make these
large landed proprietors benevolent. They would
have a desire to put their land to its best use,
and wa~ not the best use that land could be put
to that It should support human settlement?
There are a number of thoughts which
crowd upon the mind when one reads an
utterance of this kind, delivered by a responsible st.atesman to an electoral audience. How can this country get towards
real progress here while certain things
exist 1 Has the Premier ever been tired
of telling this country that under freetrade the country must progress, and that
this colony has been the one part of the
world, besides the mother country, which
has been on the whole loyal to the doctrines
of free-trade, and has maintained them 1
Yet here we have the admission that the
country has not progressed. The hon. gentleman abandons altogether the first principle of free-trade-that taxation should be
imposed for revenue. It seems now that
taxation is not to be imposed for revenue.
I~ is to be imposed upon the same prinCiple, I suppose, that the Turkish officers
bastinado the unfortunate cultivators in
order to extract taxes from them-it is to
·be imposed as a sort of exhilarating encouragement to the landowners to make
good and profitable use of their land, not
for the purpose of revenue at all, but for
an entirely different and incidental purP?se ; or, as it was put very shortly last
mght, for the purpose of bursting up the
big estates. There is a departure from
free-trade principles ! Could there be a
greater one 1 Taxation imposed no longer
for the purpose of raising revenue, but to
benefit the coulltry. Taxation is to benefit
the country, and lead it into the proper
-course. Then he goes on :
Assessment Bill.
Of course it is the best use that land can
be put to. But can land not be put to the
use of supporting human settlement unless
people actually go and Jive upon it 1 Do
we not live upon the land of this co,mtry1
Do we not live upon the productions of
it 1 Would there be anything gained if
the whole population of Sydney were scattered over the country parts, and each man
took a spade in his hand and became a
farmer 1
The Hon. Dr. CuLLEN: A great deal
would be gained if some of them were !
The Hon. C. G. HEYDON : According
to this, all should do it. That is the
reasonable reading of the argument:
Vi'as it not a monstrous thing that land, the
best in the world, and fitted to create a prosperous nation, should be locked up so long as
it gave 5 per cent. dividends in wool?
Thus it seems that no land is to be used
for the purpose of depasturing sheep. The
sheep are to be cleared off, and we are, I
suppose, to have a system of land culture
instead.
But he did not advocate land taxation on that
ground alone.
Two strings to his bowIt was a fair tax for services rendered.
In the face of that, how could the Ministry abandon the Local Government Bill at
the first sign of its getting into rough
water? A fair tax for services rendered !
Why, that is the strong justification for the
Local Government Bill-the Local Government Bill about which the Premier told us
when he came into power that he would not
· stand any nonsense, about which he would
show that he would not talk, but would
act. This bill, it seems, is supported upon
the grounds that it is a local government
bill. I can only say with regard to that
that if the House should carry an amendment, which I understand some bon. members view with favour-that is, limiting
the application of the measure to those
parts of the country which are not incorporated, and do not exist already under
municipal institutions-they can base their
justification upon that remark of the Premier. I am going to say something with
regard to that suggestion shortly; -but at
present I only wish to point out that in
supporting the bill upon the ground that a
land-tax is a fair tax for services rendered,
the Premier must admit that it is not fair
Is not the best use that land can be put to
to impose it where people already tax themthat it should support human settlement?
[The Hon. 0. G. Heydon.
Lana ana Income
[17 OcT., 1895.]
selves for the purpose of carrying out those
services. Then he says-and here we come
to the cloven foot of Henry George :
In addition to that there was the increased
vdue which the energies of the people gave to
it-the increment.
The increment is to be taxed. VT e are to
have this measure based in part at any rate
upon the principles of Henry George, and
the tax is then, to a certain extent, what
that gentleman avows it to be-a tax of
confiscation. Is there any consistency in
these various principles which have been
given in answer to the question as to the
principle upon which the tax and the exemptions are proposed. We get a number
of discordant answers-anything that will
go down and is likely to be attended to by
an unthinking audience. I fail absolutely
to see any moral justification for the exemptions. We were told by the hon.
member, Mr. Pnlsford, that whatever objections the exemptions might be open to
in themselves, in the present state of political affairs it was impossible for us to expect the Ministry to yield in regard to
them. He pointed out that some three or
four days before the last election took place
certain paragraphs were inserted in some
document to which he himself, he said, was
a party in issuing to the public. There are
three paragraphs, and I shall read the last:
Owners of land valued at £475, after deducting
value of all improvements, have no land-tax to
pay. Could the Ministry, aR honorable men,
after winning the election on representations
such as these treat their declarations on the subject as of no weight or importance?
As honorable men ! It reminds me of the
argument put forward to justify perjury on
the part of a 'man who has debauched his
neighbour's wife. He is bound in honor,
having led her astray, to perjure himself to
protect her, like Lancelot du Lac,
Whose honor rooted in dishonor stood.
If they are bound as honorable men to keep
such a representation as this, they are
bound as honorable 'men to carry out a most
dishonorable proposal. To show how sensible this honorable gentleman himself is of
this view, we shall see what he himself says
later on. He quotes :
The owner of land valued at£475 has no landtax to pay.
How can the Ministry as honorable men
disregard that 1 If it is because they are
honorable men that they must keep this
promise, I suppose they must keep it to
.Assessment Bill.
1789
those who own land to the value of £475.
They would not be very honorable men if
they brought the exemption down to £400
and abandoned those whose land was worth
something between £400 and £475 whom
they promised to exempt, and whose votes
they secured by that promise. Still less
would they be honorable if they brought
the exemption down to £300 or £200,
and betrayed all those whose land had a
value beyond that amount. Yet what do
we find the bon. member, Mr. Pulsford,
saying 1 After stating that he thinks that
the exemption in the income-tax is undoubtedly very much too high, and that a
salary o£ £3 a week would be quite enough
to exempt, he adds :
.And at the same time, if it coulcl possibly be
arranged, if we were to reduce the land exemption to, say, £200 or £250 to bring a larger number of landowners in, and at t.he same time to
allow all the smaller class of landowners to
escape, I think we should be doing fair justice.
The bon. member is perfectly willing that
the Ministry should be dishonorable and
break their word to all landowners whose
properties are worth something between
£250 and £475; but he thinks that they
are bound in honor to exempt all those
whose land is worth £250 or less. I should
like to hear what possible answer can be
given to this objection. 0£ course the
whole representation is unfounded. It is
idle to say that a ministry is ever absolved
from adopting the course which it and the
party which it leads have determined,
after mature consideration, to be the best
for the country, and I have no hesitation
in saying that, if this House takes out the
exemptions, it will be the duty of the Ministry to carefully consider our action, and
to give the other Chamber ·an opportunity
of considering it, in order to arrive, if possible, at some measure which will represent the result of the joint wisdom of the
two chambers of legislature. N otwithstanding what has been said by the Attorney-General here and the Premier elsewhere, I do not despair that wiser counsels
may yet prevail, and that that course may
be adopted.
The Ron. J. H. WANT : I only said that
the Government would not accept the
omission of the exemptions here !
The Ron. C. G. HEYDON : I am very
glad to hear the bon. and learned member
say that. I accept the explanation most
gladly!
Fourth niglbt.
U90_
Land and Income
[COUNCIL.] _
'Ihe Hon. J. H. WANT: I made the
statement very distinctly before. I said :
" All I can say is that up here I will not
accept these amendments."
The Hon. C. G. HEYDON : I am very
glad to know that I have been mistaken,
and I only hope that a compromise may
be consented to. With regard to this particular point I would ask, "Why should
there be these exemptions 1" The revenue
which we lose by the exemptions amounts
to a large sum in the aggregate; but what
is the burden which the tax would impose
on the individual1 Take the case of a man
who holds land the unimproved value of
which is £475. A tax of ld. in the £
upon £475 will come to £1 19s. 7d. a
year, and, as the majority of the small
landholders improve their land themselves,
~nd make their living out of it, the burden
of taxation which they will have to bear
will neither be exceedingly heavy nor
crushing, because their improvements and
the product of their labour would be untaxed. In cases were the land is worth
only £300 or £200, the annual tax will
be only a few shillings. The large amount
which these small taxes would aggregate is
to be abandoned, although the burden in
each case is as little as I have shown it to
be. There is another portion of the speech
of the Premier, the night before last, to
which I should like to call the attention of
the House as throwing some light upon
the principles of the measure. He said:
The iniquity of the customs duties was that
they pressed as hard on the strnggling, starving
head of a family as upon the richest man in the
country.
The Hon. H. C. DANGAR : That is not
true!
The Hon. C. G. HEYDON : It is a misrepresentation which I will not say was
deliberate, but which certainlv showed a
criminal negligence on the part ·of the hon.
and learned gentleman who made it, because he goes on to say:
They did not think of these anomalies when
they rushed the Dibbs tariff through.
\Ve know that, under that tariff, carriages
are taxed to the extent of 15 per cent. ad
valorem. Does that tax fall as heavily
upon the struggling, starving head of a
family as upon the rich man~ There is a
special tax of 15 per cent. imposed upon
vehicles of all kinds, jewelry, laces, silks,
pianos, and other things, for the purpose
. [The Hon. G. G. Heydon.
Assessment Bill.
of making the rich pay their fair share of
the bu~dens of the country. Not only is
this fact ignored, however, but we have a.
gross misstatement-! will call it by no
worse name-put before the country. Here,
too, we have the familiar contrast between
the poor and the rich. Sentences of this
kind fall as glibly and smoothly from the
lips of the Premier when he is addressing
an audience of electors as water runs off a
duck's back. But what is the result of
the provisions in the bill respecting mortgages 1 Under those provisions it is the
rich small landowner who will be exempt
from taxation.; the poor small landowner
will not be exempt. The man who has
£4 75 worth of land, and sufficient capital
to work it will be exempt from taxation,
but the man who has land to a similar
value, but who has to go to the capitalist
to get money to enable him to make it
productive, will not be exempt. I should
have thought that was as clear to the
Premier as anything could be. Now, if
an owner of money is looking for investments, and.finds that one class of investments is penalised only to a slight extent,
while in the case of another class there is a
heavy penalty, what will he do 1 I think
it is unnecessary to ask the question.
Even if he were a_ socialist, or a labour
member of the Lower House, he would
invest his money to the best advantage.
Human nature in this respect is pretty
uniform and pretty strong. It is clear
that if an ordinary investment presents
itself to a capitalist after the passing of
this measure he will see that he will be
taxed upon the interest he receives from
it at the rate of 6d. in the £ unless he advances money upon the security of land,
when he will have to pay a rate which has
been estimated and which may very fairly
be taken as Is. 8d. in the £. Which class
of investment would he favoud Unquestionably, that involving only the payment ·
of a slight tax, unless the owner of land
made it worth his while to advance capital to him. That is the operation of an
elementary law of human nature, which
will bring the burden of this tax upon the
mortgagee ultimately upon the landowner
himself. What, then, about this contrast
between the rich and the poor 1 Who is
it now that loves the poor and abhors the
rich 1 An hon. and learned gentleman
who brings in a measure heavily penalising
Land and Income
[17 OcT., 1895.]
a landowner who is poor and allowing the
landowner who is rich to escape scot-free!
There is one other thing about which I
should like to say something, and that is
the question of exempting municipalities.
I do not say that I have made up my mind
ori this subject, but it is one which will req.uire very careful consideration at the
hands of the House. There is a difficulty
in dealing with it, though I do not say
that it is an insuperable one, and that is
that any amendment of the kind suggested
will take out of the operation of a bill a
very large proportionate value of the lands
of the colony, and the House in doing that
may lay itself open to the charge of having,
while pretending to accept the bill, really
rejected its main provisions. There is one
thing, however, which may and which ought
to be done with regard to this particular
proposal, and which will, to a certain ext~nt, bring about the same result. I think
we might make the definition of " unimproved value " a little clearer. The bill
says that:
"Unimproved ,·alue "means in respect to land
the capital sum for which the fee-simple of such
land would sell
.
.
.
assuming the
actual improvements had not been made.
\Vhat do the words" actual improvements"
mean? They are not defined in the bill. Do
they mean the improvements which have
been made on the land itself, such as a
house, clearing, the erection of buildings,
and so on, or do they mean the improvements which have been made by the expenditure of municipal rates which have been
paid out of the pockets of the owners?
Suppose land has been alienated from the
Crown for thirty years, and the owner or
owners-because the principle is the same
whether the land has been continuously
in the possession of one man or of a num·
her-have expended £500 or £600 or£700
in paying municipal rates, which have been
expended in the construction of sewers
which drain the land, the making of
roads which give convenient access to it,
and in laying down gas pipes and water
pipes which supply light and water to persons residing there. These aro improvements which the owner of the land has
effected in conjunction with other persons,
and which should be taken into consideration when the unimproved value of the
land is being arrived at. If that were
done, the owners of-land in municipal
, .Assessment Bill.
1791
areas would be to a considerable extent
benefited. No doubt the idea of the
drafter of this definition was that the land,
say, in this city was to be taken as if there
were no· buildings on it. Take any corner
block. Remove the house on it, raze it to
the ground, fill up any excavations, and
make it simply a flat, utterly unimproved
piece of ground. Ascertain the value of
that, and levy a tax on it. That is not
what should be done. You have not taken
away the improvements to that land, but
you have simply taken the house down. To
find out the unimproved value, you should
remove all the municipal improvements
which the owner has contributed to, and
it seems to me that you should not only
take the house off, but you should also
take off the proportionate share of the
owner in the total value of the permanent
improvements which have been made by
the municipality.
The Hon. Sir ARTHUR RENWICK : How
would it be possible to calculate it~
The Hon. C. G. HEYDON : I think it
would be quite possible to calculate it. I
do not think that that objection should be
regarded as a very strong one, because we
find that the Ministry do not shrink from
bringing in a measure under which land
all over the country will have to be continually valued and revalued for the purpose of the assessment of this tax. Every
piece of land in the country will, for the
purpose of this tax, have to be revalued.
Every allotment in the city of Sydney will
have to be valued. The only thing that
you then have to do is to value the municipal improvements as they exist. Then
you have to distribute that total value
amongst the allotments in proper proportion. It certainly is not an impossible
thing to do, and it seems to me that justice demands it. If that were done, to a
very great extent the work would be done
which this bill requires.
The Hon. F. T. Hm!PHERY: Would you
not go back to the original Crown price~
The Ron. C. G. HEYDON : No, I think
not, because the value of the land depends,
not upon the existence of improvements
only, but also upon the existence of population. Suppose that to-morrow, by some
subterranean disturbance, some volcanic
upheaval, an island were thrown up close
to Port Jackson-an island 10 miles by 10
miles, containing 100 square miles, abso-
Fourth night.
1792
Land and Income
.[COUNCIL.]
)utely unimproved. "\Vould that island be
valueless 1 Certainly not. It would have
instantly a high value. Why 1 Because-of
the population existing in the neighbourhood which would go upon it and make the
necessary improvements and live there. It
is the presence of population which makes the
land valuable, and after you have removed
all the improvements, including municipal
improvements, upon the land in a city like
Sydney, there still remains a large value,
given to the land by the presence of a
population which needs the land. That is
the answer-to the very pertinent question
asked by the bon. member. I have nothing
more to add, except to thank bon. members for the patient hearing they have
given me. I think the House should read
the bill a second time, and I hope they will.
I also sincerely hope that they will not
shrink, in Committee, from making all
amendments which seem to them justified
in the public interest.
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY: In rising
to address the House on this question I
must say that there are many things which
we have listened to that give room for reflection. There are many things that have
been said which must be taken as real and
tangible objections to some features of this
bill. But I have not yet heard, I must be
pardoned for saying, one .argument advanced against the principle of unimproved
land-value taxation. Objection was taken,
and very strongly, to some books advocating land-value taxation, and pictures of
certain benefits that were likely to accrue,
picturing fairy scenes of prosperity, and so
on. On the other hand, we have listened
to mournful prophecies of men thrown
out of employment in hundreds and thousands, and the country generally devastated
and brought to the very verge of bankruptcy and ruin by the imposition of this
tax. But all that proves neither one thing
nor another. .The question still remains
as to the merits or demerits of ihe system
of land-value taxation. We have been told
thi> afternoon that there is no reason
whatever for changing the present fiscal
policy of the country. I think that it is
evident to any one who will take the
trouble to consider the matter that the present system of taxation does press most
inequitably and unjustly upon those who
are the least able to bear it.
HoN. MEMBERS : No !
[The lion. 0. G. Heydon.
Assessment Bill. ·
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY: It is all
very well for hon. members to say "No";
but I say yes, and the country at two
elections has also said yes.
The Hon. S. CHARLES : The petitions
do not!
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY: The petitions are from a few self-constituted
authorities.
The Hon. W. J. TRICKETT : They were
elected by the people !
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY: They were
elected to look after sewers and clean out
gutters, not to deal with politics. In support of my statement, I should like t<>
quote a few words from an authority that
certainly will not be regarded as enthusiastic in the direction of free-trade. At any
rate, I have no doubt that my hon. and
learned friend, Mr. R. E. O'Connor, and
others in this Chamber, will accept the
authority that I am now about to quote.
This authority says :
The system of indirect taxation throws the·
burden of taxation on the working·classes.
To double the customs duties would be to tax
the wealthy in only a slight degree, and would
place, the public burdens chiefly on the shouldersof labour. The farmers can hardly be expected
to favour this method of squaring the finances.
Ag11,in:
'Ve have apparently come to the end of the>
process of heaping burdens on the poor through
the Customs· house, and must make the rich contribute their fair share to the expenses of the
country.
These words are quoted from the Age and
the Leader, the strongest and most strenuous advocates of a protective policy in the
whole of Australia, and their admission is
that customs duties do throw the burdens
of taxation on the working-classes.
The Hon. C. G. HEYDON : If you tax
carriages, does it 1
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY: I should
like to ask the question what proportion
of taxation is derived from carriages~ It
would be a very small amount indeed. We
are told that by altering this system of
taxation we are going to leave 90,000
owners of land untaxed and outside the
owners of land there are many thousands
more who are to escape taxation. I should
like to know who pay the rents that are
paid in the colony-not the rates, but the
rents 1 I say that a man who does not own
land, but lives on somebody else's land, is:
taxed up to the very last limit.
An RoN. MEMBER: In what way~
Land and Income_
[17 OcT., 1895.]
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY: In the rent.
It is all very well to say that thousands
here and thousands there are going to escape taxation. They cannot possibly escape
taxation whilst the terms on which they
can occupy a foot of land are dictated to
them by other people. Another point we
l1ave had placed before us in connection
with the benefits of protection, and the
evils of land-value taxation, is that we are
going to impose a tax on industries. It
seems to me that that is the very thing
that we have been doing all along, that we
have been taxing industry, that we have
been taxing the very men who ought not
to be taxed. What is a land-value tax 7 It
is not a tax upon a man's improvements.
It is not a tax upon the products of a
man's own efforts. It is not a tax upon a
man because he spends money in improving land. It is not a tax imposed upon a
man because he engages in industry, because he enters into trade of any kind.
What is it 7 It is a tax placed upon certain opportunities which are given to that
man, and that man is asked to pay according to the opporLunities which he possesses.
If by the land being in a centre of population, being adjacent to a market, its value
is made gre:1ter, or, to use the words here
given, the unimproved value of the land
itself is made greater, then the opportunities for that man to use that land to
advantage are greater, and this tax will,
naturally, be greater than that imposed
upon land further away from a market,
or in more scattered districts. According
to the opportunities given to him by the
possession of land, a man is asked to pay,
and the more he improves his land in the
sense of direct improvements, the more he
uses his land, the better use_ he puts it to,
and the greater advantage he gets out of
it, the less in proportion would the tax be
to his income from the land. The tax is
not on his industry, but on the opportunity given to him by the possession of the
land. Instead of its being a tax on his
industry, or a discouragement to his industry, it is an incentive. Let me put the
case of a man, not a politician, who spoke
to me a little while ago. He said, "I am
the owner of 40,000 acres of land, and the
land-tax will hit me pretty hard ; but I
confess there is not one valid argument
against land-value taxation," and the sensible conclusion he came to was-that he
.Assessment Bill.
1793
must turn to and put his land to better
use. Instead of being a tax on thrift, or
on a man's enterprise, it will encourage
thrift, enterprise, and industry. By a
system of indirect taxation, we are hampering our industries. We are simply putting fetters upon them. We are hindering them in almost every conceivable way.
What does industry ask, what does· trade
ask 1 The hon. and learned member, Mr.
R. E. O'Connor, s;tid the other night all
the country wants is to be let alone. I say
all that industry wants is to be let alone;
all that trade wants is to be let alone;
and let it alone by taking off the fetters
that are now imposed upon it. Let it alone
on the one hand by taking off the burdens
which we impose by a system of indirect
taxation and let it alone on the other
hand by taking away from it those restrictions which are placed upon it by unconditional private ownership. If a man accepts
the private ownership of land, subject to
the conditions which should be imposed
upon that ownership by the existence of
the state and the· community, then he will
use that land not only to his own advantage but to the advantage of the country.
But give unconditional private ownership,
and we are placing at once restrictions on
our industry and barriers to the very progress of our trade. Some one has said
this is only a tax on a certain class of
property. Why not tax all property 1
Why not tax the improvements 7 Just
for the very reason we should not tax
our industry, our enterprise, the exercise
of a man's powers in developing the soil
of the country and using it. If a man
is prepared to pay, as I think it will be
admitted by all he ought to be prepared
to pay, for the opportunities that the possession of that soil gives him, we are going
too far when we place a tax on the improvements he has seen fit to place on that
soil.
The Hon. Dr. MAcLAURIN : He has paid
for it!
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY : It is all
very well to say that the man has paid for
it. A point was made here last night that
this is an incremental tax. It is nothing
of the kind. Talk about exemptions ! To
make this an incremental tax you must
exempt every penny which has been paid
to the Crown for the land. If a man has
bought 40,000 acres at £1 an acre, and
Fourtl~ night.
1794:
Land and Income
[COUNCIL.]
the land is now worth £50,000, to make
this an incremental tax you must tax only
the sum of £10,000 .
. The Ron. Dr. MAcLAURIN: Why 1
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY : Because
that is the increment.
The Hon. Dr. MAcLAURIN: It may be in
the nature of an incremental tax, althoughnot one purely and simply !
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY: It is not in
any sense in the nature of an incremental.
tax. It has been said that the man has paid
already for his right to possess and use that
land. I say he has not. He may have paid
a certain sum years ago for the land, but
because of the development of the country,
of the increase of population, and of things
which have followed on the increase of population, the use value of that land is far
greater to-day than it was before.
The HQn. R. E. O'CoNNOR : That is the
increment!
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY : I admit it
is the increment, but I do not admit that
this is an incremental tax, because, if so,
you must exempt that which has been paid
to the state for the land. The added opportunities which are given to that man by
reason of his possession of that land form
a fair and lf'gitimate cause why the state
should ask him to pay for his rights and
privileges. A question has been raised
here as to getting at the unimproved Yalue
of land, and I think the last speaker got
at that pretty well. Some persons have
raised the question as if it involved very
great difficulty. The unimproved value of
land was spoken of by the hon. and learned
member, Dr. MacLaurin, as very hypothetical. I had occasion the other day, on
behalf of a friend to go to a firm of valuators and ask for a valuation of a certain
property, and the form of their valuation
is to this effect : "This consists of such and
such an extent of land which we value at
so much. The improvements on it consist
of so-and-so, which we value at so much."
A firm to which we entrust such work
finds no difficulty in telling us what the
unimproved value of land is.
,
The Hon. Dr. MACLAURIN: But that is
not the definition in the bill !
The Hon. .T. BLANKSBY : It is the
definition in the bill.
The Hon. Dr. MAcLAURIN : The bill
says "supposing the improvements had not
Leen made," which is ~different thing!
. [The Hon. J. Blanksby.
Assessment Bill.
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY : Supposing
the improvements had not been made. The
improvements are estimated at so much,
take that amount ofi' and the land is taken
at so much.
The Ron. Dr. MAcLAURIN : You do not
get the same thing !
The Ron. J. BI~ANKSBY : Any valuator will admit that that is the way on
which he proceeds. It is a very simple
matter to get at the unimproved value of
land. I do not say that any one will in
every case estimate the unimproved value
exactly to the £. It has been said that
the objection to this system is that it is
going to be awfully expensive, and the
opinion of a gentleman has been quoted as
to the expense of its collection in New
Zealand. It is very easy to take what is
termed the assessment year and show how
seriously the expense of collecting a tax of
this kind enters into the question. We
should take not only the assessment year
but other years, because it is not provided
that the assessment shall take place every
year, and, what is more than that, the first
assessment will involve far greater expense
than will any subsequent assessment. I
have taken the trouble to extract the figures
from the " Statistical Register" of New
Zealand and that of South Australia. For
the year 1893 the total cost in connection
with the land-value tax in New Zealand
amounted to 2·7 per cent., which would
make the cost of collecting a sum of
£400,000 in this country £10,800, which
is vastly different from the figures which
were quoted by the bon. and learned member, Dr. MacLaurin. In South Australia
for the year 1893, an assessment year, the
cost was only 5·2, which would amount to
a little over £20,000 here. Yet we were
told the other night that the cost in New
Zealand was over £30,000, and that it
would reach a terrible amount here on
account of our much larger area.
The Hon. Dr. MAcLAURIN : It was the
figures of Mr. McGowen, the commissioner
of taxes, that I quoted !
The Ron. J. BLANKSBY: I have
quoted the figures from the " Statistical
Register" after the system had got into
something like full swing.
The Hon. Dr. MAc LAURIN: I quoted from
an official publication by Mr. McGowen, in
which he gives the cost of collection inN ew
Zealand!
Land and Inc01ne
[17 OcT., 1895.]
The Ron. J. BLANKSBY: The " Statistical Register" is also an official publication. It has been said that in introducing
this system we are going to place a very
heavy burden on the country against the
town. And yet, almost in the same breath,
we are told that we must exempt the land
within municipalities because the tax is
going to press so hardly upon the residents
of municipalities. In one breath we are
told that it is going to press on the country as against the town, and in the next
breath we are told that we must exempt
the lands which are really the lands in the
town. It seems to me that we can look
round on all sides, and, if one argument
will not do, we can use another argument
of an entirely opposite nature. The fact
remains, however, that where you have the
most valuable lands there it is that the
heaviest tax will certainly fall; but there
it is where it can best be borne; there it
is where it can most equitably and justly
fall; and if the tax falls upon land according to its real value, whether that value be
high or low, it seems to me that there can
be no injustice in one as against the other.
There can be no injustice in the town as
against the country, or in the country as
against the town, if the tax presses in the
same ratio upon the different lands, in
different localities, and in different positions. We are told that we are to exempt lands in municipalities because men
have banded themselves together, because,
under the Land Act, they have constituted themselves into a municipality, and
have agreed to contribute pro rata so much
for the formation of their streets, and so
on.
The Ron. J. DAVIES: And to relie,·e
the central government to the extent of
£600,000 a year !
The Ron. J. BLANKSBY : To relieve
the central government of a lot of spare
cash every year in subsidies. Because men
band themselves together-under the law
of the land, I admit'-to expend money
for the improvement of their streets, their
gutters, and so on, they are to be freed
from any responsibility, because of the
thousand and one other avenues by which
there is given to their land added value~.
Will any hon. member st>.y that a revival
of trade, that the opening of a rail way, that
the extension of settlement in a place a
hundred or two hundred miles inland, does
.Assessment Bill.
1795
not tend to enhance the value, even of city
lands1 We cannot ignore the fact that
the prosperity of one part of the colony
must be shared, to a greater or lesser degree, by the whole of the colony; and where
you have a centre, there the benefits will
certainly ultimately focus. Here, in Sydney,
lands and properties do not pay over much.
They are, however, paying a share of what
is termed. taxation, although it is not, in
one sense of the word, taxation at all; it
is a friendly arrangement, a friendly society
business. But whilst we admit that we are
paying what we may term~ for the time,
taxation, .for improvements immediately
in the neighbourhood, that does not for one
moment exempt land from taxation in the
interests of the country, seeing that everything that is done to J>romote settlement
and to enhance the prosperity of the colony
generally, brings back its reflex benefits
on the city and upon every foot of land in
it. We heard an argument the other night
that the tax would operate most severely in
places outside, where a man did not go in
for a lot of improvements, and so on; that
if a man has a piece of land worth £500
and improvements upon it to the value of
£500, he pays land-tax-omitting exemptions for the moment-upon hal£ his property, whereas a man, say, in the city,
who has £5,000 worth of land and£15,0~0
worth of improvements upon it, only pays
upon one-fourth of it. It is all very well
to talk like that, but let us not forget that
while a man here may have £5,000 worth of
land, and puts £15,000 worth of property
upon it from which to get a return, the
man further back may not have improvements which can be measured like bricks
and mortar can, in the shape of buildings
which will bring in rent, but he may put
his land to agricultural purposes, and it is
as great and as good. a means of return to
that man as the property which the other
man holds in Sydney. There are benefits
in the case of the man in the country
which you cannot put down on paper as
improvements, and it is hardly fair to
compare the two conditions and say, "Here
is a man with £500 worth of land and
only £500 worth of improvements upon
it. Here is another with £5,000 worth of
land and £15,000 worth of improvements
on it, when there are really resting in that
land thincrs which stand in the place of
improvem~nts which here in the city are
Fourtl~ night.
1796
Land and Income
[COUNCIL.]
_a means of revenue by way of rent. ·with
regard to the principle of the bill-the
principle of direct taxation-there is no
need for me to say that I am very strongly
in sympathy with it. There is no need
for me to say anything more to convince
hon. members that I shnJl support the
second reading of the bill as against the system of indirect taxation, which oppresses
those who can least bear it, which restricts
and hampers industry and trade, and that I
shall vote for a system which will help to
remove the fetters and take away the
shackles from our trade and industry
and give it a. chance to live and thrive.
But when I have said that, I am not going
to the extent of saying that to every point
and feature of the bill, to every line of it
from end to end, I could give a hearty
"yea." I am not prepared for one moment
to say that. There are difficulties. There
is the difficulty of the exemptions. Let
me ask hon. mP-mbers to remember this.
A great deal has been made not only tonight but also last night, of my hon. friend's
remark as to the reason for supporting the
exemptions. It does not for one moment
touch the reason the exemptions were inserted in the bill, but the reason why the
Ministry now should stand by and support these exemptions. There is no gettiag away from this fact : that although
there may be no official records which prove
the position, still I think no one will attempt
to deny that in June last a similar measure
-the same measure if hon. members like
-came before this Chamber. The point
of attack, the point of objection then was
the exemptions, and it was pretty freely
stated that on the direction which your
ruling, sir, might take would depend the
votes of a great many hon. members-that
if the exemptions could be altered, or removed, there were members prepared to
support the second reading, and to go into
Committee on the bill.
The Hon. H. C. DANGAR : It was not
so stated!
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY : I admit
the records of the House do not prove it;
but I think it is generally admitted.
The Hon. J. H. WANT: The hon. and
learned member, Sir Julian Salomons, said
so!
The Hon. H. C. DANGAR : He is not
the House!
[The Hon. J. Blanksby.
Assessment Bill.
The I{;on. J. H. WANT : I am only mentioning that one. Hon. members cheered
him to the echo !
RoN. MEMBERS : No !
The Ron. J. BLANKSBY: The other
night the attitude of hon. members, if not
by their speeches, by their silence, certainly
confirmed that opinion when the matter
was again referred to the President for his
decision. If the action of many hon. members is due to the exemptions, then we
have to remember that the Ministry went
to the country with the bill in their hands,
and with the exemptions in it. They said
to the country : You are to say whether
this bill with the exemptions shall or shall
not pass into law. Let the men who voted
be what they may, the people of the
country..:_and we are certainly a country
governed by the majority-indorsed the
policy of the Ministry. I am prepared still
further to admit that there were members
returned to the representative Chamber
who personally do not approve of exemptions-who said to the electors: "Personally, I do not like the exemptions; but
I will have land taxation with exemptions rather than no land taxation at all."
Many, I admit, took that ·stand; but the
fact remains that a large majority of the
representatives of the other branch of the
legislature were returned to support the
programme of the Ministry upon which
they went to the country. We cannot get
away from that fact. I think the Ministry will have to consider very seriously,
and remember all the consequences that
are involved in submitting to a change
and an alteration in the law. I do not
say they should not submit to a change. I
do not say that they should not accept
any modific'ltion; but I do say that they
are warranted in looking at the matter in.
a serious light, because they went to the
country with the exemptions in their hands
and came back with a majority. On principle, I admit there is not the slightest
shred of argument which can be advanced
in favour of exemptions in land taxation ;
but politics are not all principle.
The Hon. J. DAVIES: The hon. member
gives his whole case away by making that
statement!
TheRon.R.E.O'CoNNOR: Iliketoseethe
bon. member taking the bull by the horns !
The Ron. J. BLANKSBY : No man
can pretend that in every act of legislation
Land and Income
[17 OcT., 1895.]
·he gets the whole of the principle which
he would like to see em bodied in it.
Politics is the art of compromise. We get
as much of certain principles admitted as
is possible, and we have to be contented
with that. There is such a thing as expediency entering into our' consideration
every.day.
The Hon. J. DAVIES: You can justify
everything by expediency !
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY: No, we cannot. Figures were quoted the other night
to show that while £96,000,000 worth of
unimproved land would be snb)ect to taxation under the bill, £80,000,000 worth
would escape; but bon. members forget
that the exemption of £475 applies to
every estate, and in this connection I would
ask : who profits most by the exemptions 1
I own a small piece of land upon which a
house is built, and, if the bill is passed as
it stands, I will benefit to the tune of,
perhaps, 8s. or 9s. But my neighbour,
who owns land to the value of £500, will
benefit to the tune of £1 19s. 7d. Men
whose land is worth less than £4 7 5-and
there are hundreds and thousands of such
men-only profit to the extent of the value
of their land, while the man whose land is
worth more than £475, gets the full benefit of the exemption. It seems to me that
there is not the injustice in this provision
that some people imagine; but that, when
you come to analyse it, it appears evident
that an attempt has been made to get as
near justice in the matter as is possible.
The next question of serious moment is
~he provision affecting mortgages.
I hon. estly say that I would very much have
preferred to see the whole question of taxing the income derivable from mortgages
dealt with in connection with the incometax-not that it would have any greater
element of justice in it perhaps; but because I think it would have been simpler,
and would have removed many difficulties
in -the way of interpreting and applying
the bill. While I think that there are
points of serious difficulty which will have
to be faced in connection with the question
<>f mortgages, I cannot for a moment admit
the contention which has been urged as to
the injustice of asking mortgagees to pay
their share of land-value taxation. It is all
very well to say that they would not pay it.
Hon. members talk about landlords passing
.on this and mortgagees passing on that, as
Assessment Bill.
1797
if mortgagees were a benefit society, and
landlords were a charity organisation. If
a man takes 16s. as rent for a house, it is
only because he cannot get 17s., and, if
he takes 5 per cent. for an advance on
mortgage, it is because he cannot get 6
per cent.. So you get back to the old question of supply and demand. I admit, however, the strength of the position taken up
by the hon. and learned member, Mr. C.
G. Heydon, when he pointed out that,
while a man who advanced his money on
any security other than land would have
to pay a tax of 6d. in the £ on the income
which he derived from the investment, the
man who lent the same amount upon land
would have to pay a tax more than three
times as great. This is a question which
the Ministry should seriously face, even
in this Chamber. At the same time, I do
not admit that there is any injustice in
asking mortgagees to pay their share of
the taxation which is due on the land in
which they have a large, and, in many
cases, the whole interest. The hon. and
learned member, Mr. R. E. O'Connor,
talked about mortgages becoming overdue,
and about the risk of mortgagees selling ;
but I think I know a little about that
kind of thing. I had a little experience
of it during the dull times of the last year
or two, and it is my experience that mortgagees are very sorry to sell. vVhen the
value has not fallen to the limit of the
mortgage, men are not. inclined to sell.
While there are hundreds and thousands of
mortgages in existence to-day, I know that,
if they were terminated, and the amount
advanced upon them had to be lent out
again, a lower rate of interest would have
to be accepted for it. To my mind, there
is no fear of mortgagees selling, because they
are not going to flood the market, and thus
bring down values. While I admit the difficulty connected with the mortgage clauses,
I maintain that it is equitable and just
that the man who, by virtue of the mortgage, holds the biggest interest in a piece
of land, should pay his fair share of the
taxation upon it. We have been told that
this is an inopportune time for imposing
land-value taxation; but it appears to Irie
that it is the very opposite from an inopportune time. It is said that the imposition of a land-tax will decrease the value
of land. I admit that it will decrease its
sale value ; but it will not take away from
Fourtl~ nigltt.
'1798
Land and Income
[COUNCIL.]
its use value. Land is that element to
which constantly accrues all the progress
arising from the development, growth, and
progress of the community, and, while the
effect of ·land-value taxation may be in
some sense to interfere with what is called
the capital value, that is, the sale value of
land, it will not interfere with its use value.
It will give an impetus to enterprise and
to thrift, and to the expenditure of money
in a way which will cause the development
of land and add to the general prosperity,
and thus it will continually enhance that
value which it is contended it will lessen.
The Hon. J. HosKINS : Even if the
owner cannot make a living out of it!
The Ron. J. BLANKSBY: If land will
not return a living to its owner it has no
value.
The Hon. H. E. KATER : Then why
should it be taxed 1
The Ron. J. BLANKSBY : Who will
tax it 1
The Ron. H. C. DANGAR : The commissioners!
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY : How can
commissioners put a value on a thing which
has no value 1 There is no fear of any man
being compelled to pay a tax on· land if
that land has no value. We know that
just now the value of land is considerably
less than it was a few years ago. I do not
think that it would be wise at this time to
enter into the causes of the depression of
land value. I believe- and there are a
great many who share the hope with methat the day of adversity is departing, and
that the day of prosperity will soon dawn.
The Ron. J. LUCAS : This tax will bring
back the depression !
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY : I hope that
it will have the effect of preventing the
wild speculative booming of land values,
which has taken place in the past, and that
it will give us a prosperity, not, perhaps,
so rapid and so wild as our former prosperity, but more thorough, because more
gradual, and more real, because based on
truer and better lines than we have known
in the past.
[The PTesiclent left the chai1' at 6·30 p.m.. The
House nsumecl at 7·30 p.m.]
The Hon. J. BLANKSBY: I wish to offer
an explanation, and in some sense, perhaps, an apology to the hon. and learned
member, Dr. J\'IacLaurin. I referred to a
statement made by the hon. and learned
[The Hon. J. Blanksby.
Assessment Bill;
member as to the cost of collection of the
land-tax in New Zealand being £30,000;
bp.t I find, on reference to a document
kindly shown to me by the hon. and
learned member during the tea hour, that
that is the cost of assessment. Of course
that alters, to some extent, the position I
took up on the matter; although I think
I may still maintain that the cost is not so
excessi \'e as has been suggested. I think
the explanation is due to the bon. and
learned member, that I misconceived the
purport of the quotation.
The Hon. A. H. JACOB : This Land
and Income Tax Assessment Bill now before us has been so thoroughly threshed
out, both in this and in previous sessions,
and the arguments pro and con have been
so forcible that I do not intend to take up
time by going oYer the same beaten ground
that has been occupied by so many hon.
members. I intend to take a certain course
in regard to the bill, and I wish to give
reasons for the faith that is in me, and to
justify the vote which I am going to give,
which, I may say, will be against the second
reading of the bill. I thought that the
hatchet was buried, when the Loan 13ill was
being discussed here, by the Hon. Sir Julian
Salomons, deprecating any reference to what
had been said by various members of the
Assembly during the election and at other
times. Therefore, I was sorry to bear tli.e
hon. and learl).ed member, Mr. C. G.
Heydon, to-night dig up the hatchet again,
and make reference to what had been said
by the Premier during the general elections. The Premier, a few nights ago,
said offensive things about this Chamber,
therefore I do not find fault with the hon.
and learned member, Mr. R. E. O'Connor,
for saying the. things which he did; I think
that he was fully justified. I think it is
blameworthy on the part of the Premier to
make offensive remarks on every possible
occasion in reference to this House. I do
not agree with the hon. and learned member, Mr. R. E. O'Connor, in his expressions
of regret at the speech of the hon. member,
Mr. Hoskins. I think it was a plain, practical speech. We have had many able
speeches delivered against the bill, both in
the present and the previous session, and
we have clear evidence that the bill is, as
designated by the hon. and learned member,
Mr. C. G. Heydon, a measure of spoliation
and tyranny and mischief. I cannot con-
Land and Income
[17 OCT., 1895.]
Assessment Bill.
1799
ceive how bon. memb~rs who voted against of a bill on a previous occasion, and that
the bill on a previous occasion are going bill contained the same exemption that
to change their tactics and vote for the this bill contains. It exempted land from
second reading now after the extraordinary taxation up to £475 in value, income up
speeches of condemnation which they have to £300 a year, and if the people returned
made against the bill, notably, the hon. and an answer after our rejection of that bill
learned member, Mr. C. G. Heydon, the bon. they returned an answer in favour of a
and learned member, Mr. R. E. O'Connor, bill with exemptions. The bon. and
the bon. member, Mr. Kater, and one or two learned member is shaking his head; but
others. Their speeches were damnatory I say that they did. We rejected the bill,
of the bill ; therefore I cannot understand and the Premier went to the country with
how those bon. and learned members are the bill and the exemptions. It is all very
going to vote for the second reading of the well to say that the country could not give a
measure except for a particular reason. decision on matters of detail; I quite agree
They are going, from a motive of expedi- with that. But the Premier went to the
ency, to vote for the second reading of the country and put the issue in this way. "It
bill so that they can emasculate it in Com- is the rich man against the poor man. We
mittee. I will adopt the language that an sent a bill to the Council with the exempbon. and learned member used a few nights tions. We proposed to relieve you of cusago, rather offensive to me, with a slight toms duties, and to exempt you from taxavariation, and say, what is the object of this tion on your land up to the value of £475,
remarkable change of attitude 7 The object and from taxation on your incomes up to
is to induce the House against its judg- £300. Now, what are you going to vote
ment, not to reject the bill, but to pass the for, for the Government or against the
second reading; that was the language used Government 7 " and the peQple said, " We
by the bon. member with other offensive are in favour of the measure of the Gowords. I adopt the language used by the vernment," and this measure has come
l10n. member, Mr. L. F. Heydon, the other here with a mandate from the people. It
night, and say that the attitude of many is absurd to say that we are to go into
bon. members is to force the House against Committee to strike out the exemptions. If
its judgment to vote for the second read- we have a mandate· in regard to the bill
ing of the bill. I do not agree with the hon. we have a mandate with regard to the exand learned member, Mr. C. G. Heydon, emptions. I shall be no party to voting for
with regard to the position of this House. the second reading of the bill to give an
He says we have a right to make amend- opportunity to those hon. members who,
ments in the bill in the shape of sugges- from expediency, are now going to vote
tions. Where does the hon. and learned for the second reading of the bill with
member find that in the Constitution Act 7 the intention of emasculating the measure,
This is a co-ordinate branch of the legisla- so that it will not be accepted elsewhere.
ture. We have a right to do everything We have been told by the Attorneythat the other branch has a right to do, General and by the Premier that if we
except with regard to appropriation and make the contemplated alterations in the
taxation bills. We are not simply a re- bill it will not be accepted by the other
vising chamber; we have a right to act in Chamber. I am going to vote against the
any way we think proper in regard to the second reading of the bill because I am
business that comes before us. I do not against it for reasons which have been asthink that we are simply making a sug- signed by hon. members, notably the hon.
gestion when we make amendments in a and learned member, Dr. MacLaurin. It
bill which we get from the other branch is a most unjust bill with regard to taxaof thP. legislature, or which we originate tion of land, incomes, and mortgages, and
here. I cannot agree with the bon. and other matters as pointed out by hon. memlearned member in regard to that. Some bers who have spoken; buti shall be no party
bon. members have told us that they are to amending the bill in the way proposed,
going to vote for the second reading of the because in my humble judgment it would
bill because the country has returned an be an illegal act. I shall be 1:o party to
answer in favour of this measure. We the bill beina sent into Comnultee to en.
rejected a motion for the second reading able us to doo an illegal act. I am agamst
Fottrth night.
1.800
·Land and Income
[COUNCIL.]
.Assessment lJill. ·
The Hon. W. R. CAMPBELL : I think the
the bill. It is a selfish measure sent here
by the mandate of the people. It is natural hon. member· is quite in order, because we
that the people will vote for a measure . enacted the principle of payment of memthat will exempt them from taxation, and bers in order to bring men of that class
tax the wealthy. It is a bill sent to us into the other House. I do not see that it
by the branch of the legislature which is is any reflection upon· these hon. gentlesupposed to be representative of taxation; men to say that they depend upon their
a branch of the legislature which has sent salary.
The Hon. Dr. CuLLEN: It is reflection
in a measure which exempts themselves
from taxation to a great extent. I have n~t on their poverty but their motives!
been told by an hon. member who professes
The PRESIDENT : I cannot imagine that
to know that at least eighty members of the hon. member intended his remarks to
the other branch of the legislature are de- be offensive ; but at the same time if they
pendent on their salaries of £300 a year, are likely to be regarded as offensive by
and we have that branch of the legislature those to whom they are applied such resending up a bill exempting its members flections will be improper. I am sure the
from all taxation except on such commodi- hon. member will see that it is not desirties as tobacco, opium, and grog. They, able to make .any reflections which will
in a blameworthy manner, sent here a bill cause ill-feeling between the two branches
which has proved to be a curse to the coun· of the legislature.
try, the Payment of Members Bill, and
TheHon.A. H. JACOB: I quite accede,
they provided in it to pay themselves from sir, to the doctrine you have laid down,
the beginning of that session.
and I accept the hon. and learned member,
The Hon. L. F. HEYDON: I rise to order. Dr. Cullen, as being the mouthpiece of the
I ask, sir, wh~t4er the hon. member is in other House. I shall not continue that
order in stating that eighty members of line of argument. I shall not be out of
the other House are dependent upon their order in saying that it has been candidly
allowance of £300 a year for support, and acknowledged by the Vice-President of the
referring, when the question of payment of Executive Council that the insertion of
members is not before the House, to those the exemptions is tantamount to a bribe by
bon. members in a way which must be the Government, because hon. members
offensive 1
will recollect that the hon. and learned
The Hon. Dr. CuLLEN : I would like to member had some correspondence in the
add my protest against the remarks of the press with Mr. Bruce Smith. A paragraph
hon. member. Notwithstanding the high in one letter which the hon. and learned
admiration I have for his ability, I think member wrote has this remarkable view:
it is decidedly wrong, undignified, and unOne thing is perfectly clear-except to those
justifiable to impugn in that way the motives who
will not see-and that is that the Govern·
of hon. members in another Chamber.
ment cannot fairly be charged with seeking to
The Hon. A. H. JACOB : I did not hear bribe the small landowners, because it introall that the hon. and learned member, Dr. duced the bill without exemptions, and therefore
Cullen, said; but whether he thinks the did not appeal to their cupidity at all.
course I am taking undignified or not I
There is an admission that the insertion of
cannot help it. I am the best judge of my the exemption is tantamount to a bribe.
It acted as a bribe, for it led to the elecown actions.
The Hon. Dr. CuLLEN : It is the dignity tion of a certain class who have sent up
of the Chamber-not the hon. member's the bill. The action of the Government
personal dignity which is concerned!
in going to the country was challenged
The Hon. A. H. JACOB : The dignity of by the hon. and learned member, Mr. C.
the Chamber is involved by my action, and G. Heydon. We have heard over and over
if I think it right to make these remarks, again that the Government was challenged
if I am in order I shall not be gnided by by this House to go to the country, I
the hon. and learned member. I maintain believe he was the only member of the
that when a bill is sent up with these pro- House who offered that challenge. I do
visions, it is quite in order for me to depre- not suppose the Government accepted his
cate the action of the other House, and to challenge. We rejected the bill, and it led
point out that theit· action is uncalled-for. to a dissolution and an appeal to the coun·
[The Hon. A. H. Jacob.
Land and Income
[17 OcT., 1895.]
try, which has resulted in the sending up
of this bill. We are in the position of an
umpire. It is our duty to protect the weak
against the strong. I am not a man of
figures, and, therefore, I shall not quote
.any. The hon. and learned member, Dr.
MacLaurin, has distinctly shown that the
incidence of the tax will be on very few,
and that the vast majority will escape. It
lis the duty of this House to step forward
and prevent the taxation from being taken
<>ff the shoulders of the many and placed
_ on those of the few. All according to their
means-rich and poor-receive the benefits
of government, and each one should, according to his means, contribute to the
-cost of good government, to the maintenance of the police, the courts of justice, and
such services. I do not see why they
.should be relieved of taxation, which would
be the result of this bill. I was inclined
to move the following amendment in this
direction, though I do not suppose it would
meet with any support:That all the words after the word "That" be
omitted with a view to the insertion in their
place of the following words :-"this House declines to proceed further with this bill inasmuch
·as the provisions contained in it which exempt
the owners of lands of the unimproved value
-of £475, and of incomes of not exceeding £300 per
annum, from taxation would most inequitably
relieve from paying a fair proportion of taxes
thousands of persons who should contribute for
benefits received from .good government, and tax
to an enhanced degree a comparative few; but
the House is prepared to favourably consider a
measure without land exemptions, and containing
a moderate exemption on incomes, say, not exceeding £150 per annum."
Judging from the temper of the House, I
-do not think that even that amendment
would meet with approval. Therefore, I
shall not take up their time by proposing
it.
The Ron. J. WATSON : I hope the hon.
member will move the amendment!
The Ron. A. H. JACOB: If there is
any chance of my carrying the amendment
I will do so.
The Ron. J. WATSON : Put it on record !
The Ron. A. H. JACOB: I will put
the amendment on record, and test the
sense of the House whether _they will support the amendment or go into Committee with the view of eliminating the exemptions and amending the bill in a way
which will lead to its destruction. Ron.
members no doubt have read the amend6 B
Assessment Bill.
1801
ments, of which the hon. and learned member, Mr. R.. E. O'Connor, has given notice.
Is it likely that if the House adopts his
amendments, and other amendments which
will be moved, for instance by the hon.
member, Mr. Trickett, with whom I am
entirely in accord, the other House and the
Government will accept them 7 I think
it will be a pity to waste our time in dealing with the bill in that way, and therefore, sir, I now formally move my amendment. If my amendment is carried, it
will not amount to a rejection of the bill,
because it will be quite competent for the
representatives of the Government then to
withdraw the bill, and to send up a bill in
accordance with the view this House expresses. The amendment will place a plain
issue before the House. It is in accordance with the precedents of the House of
Commons, and, indeed, is in accordance
with a precedent which has been acted on
here. I consider it would be a simple waste
of time after what has been stated by the
Attorney-General, the Premier, and others,
to amend the bill in the way which is contemplated. The Attorney-General stated
a little while ago that he only indicated
the other night the action of the Government in reference to the amendment of the
exemptions as applied to this House ; but
what he said on that occasion was the following:So far as I am concerned, I declined to give
any opinion as to the power of this House; but
whatever ruling is given, the Government--
Of course the Vice-President of the Executive Council and the Attorney-General
are not the Governmentwill not accept any amendment with regard to
the exemptions. Therefore, if I were to express
any opinion at all, I should express an opinion I
have formed beforehand with regard to this
matter; but I am not going to say what it is.
But in order that there may be no mistake whatever with regard to the ruling the President
gives, hon. members will understand clearly arid
absol_utely from me that if he rules that they can
wipe out the exemptions or alter them, they
will find the Government - - ·
The Government again, not the two members who represent the Government in this
Housewill not accept either one or the other. Although
there may be some shortening of the debate with
regard to the decision of the President, I should
be very glad to see a decision given one way or
the other. I do not care what it is; but whatever
that decision is, let hon. members understand
clearly and beyond doubt that they will save no
Fourth night.
1802
Land and Income
[COUNCIL.]
time in one way, because -the Government will
not accept one farthing of reduction in these
exemptions.
The Hon. R. E. O'CoNNOR : The Government may be forced to accept them !
The Hon. Dr. GARRAN : My hon. and
learned colleague stated to-night that what
he meant to imply was the Government as
represented here !
The Ron. A. H. JACOB: It is all very
well to make this explanation now, but
that is what he said. What answer will
the hon. and learned member give to the
Premier's statement the other night, that
it will be unconstitutional and illegal for
tbis House to alter the exemptions, and
that the Government will not accept our
amendments 1 Are the Government going
to play one fiddleinthis House and another
fiddle in the other House 1 It is a1l very
well for the Attorney-General and the
Vice-President of the Executive Council
to say that; but the Attorney,General, in
emphatic words, which are pregnant with
meaning, indicated the intention of the Government. If they are going to be so weak
as to swa1low the leek let them do it. Suppose that we pass the Land and Income
Tax Assessment Bill, as a matter of course
the Land-tax Bill, Income-tax Bill, and
Customs Duties Bill will follow, for I suppose thr.re is no intention to reject one or
other of these bills, which, in conjunction
with this bill, are part and parcel of the
financial policy of the Government.
The Hon. J. HosKLNS: I hope it will !
The Hon. A. H. JACOB : I do not
think it is at all likely that the Honse will.
I think we shall stultify ourselves if we
amend this bill and reject any of the other
bills. I think it would be very weak on
our part to take that course, and I certainly shall be no party to its being done.
But what will be the result if we do 1 We
have been told that the Colonial Treasurer
expects to get a revenue of £400,000 from
the land-tax with the exemption, and of
£108,000 from the income-tax with the
exemption. If the House should make the
amendments which are contemplated-and
which I think it will do, judging from the
tone of hon. members, at which I am
greatly astonished and pained-these bills
will produce a revenue far in excess of
what the Government desire to have.
The Hon. E. WEBB: The hon. member
will find that they will require it all !
[The Hon. A. H. Jacob.
Assessment Bill.
The Hon. A. H. JACOB: It is not very
long since th~ Colonial Treasurer said he
had plenty of money. It would be far
simpler, as the hon. member, Mr. Hoskins,
said, to obtain the revenue which is required
by imposing a duty on tea and a tax on
newspapers. I have held this view for a,
long while. A duty on tea would produce
from £125,000 or £130,000 a year, and a
tax on newspapers would produce £40,000
or £50,000 a year.
The Hon. J. WATSON : A very proper
charge, too !
The Hon. J. HosKINS : And give effect
to the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission !
The Hon. A. H. JACOB: I do not ~ee
why we should carry the wares of newspaper-owners any more than the wares of
a grocer or any other business man. In
that way the Government could have obtained a fair revenue, along with the present customs tariff, without resorting to
taxation in the objectionable 'form which
has been so forcibly pointed out by hon.
members, and more especially by the hon.
and learned member, Mr. R. E. O'Connor7
last night. Another way of reducing the
expenditure of the country would be by
means of a local government bill. \Ye
should have had a local government bill
many years ago, and except for the cowardice of the Government we should have
l1ad it now. If they had stuck to their
colours they would have succeeded in inducing the legislature to pass the Local
Government Bill pretty much on the same
lines as they introduced it. As we have
not a local government bill, I think thobest thing to do will be to accede to the
wishes of the tens of thousands of people
represented by the ninety or one hundred
municipalities who have presented petitions
to the House. I shall not be in a position
to help the hon. member, :M:r. Trickett, in
Committee. I should, however, be ready
to support him in moving the exemption
of all municipalities.
The Hon. W. J. TRICKETT : The hon.
member will have an opportunity of doing
so before the House ·goes into Committee,
because I will move an addition to his
amendment!
The Ron. A. H. JACOB : I am glad
to hear the hon. member say that. The
petitions which have been sent in to us
have been very forcible. They are all in
Land and Income
[17 OcT., 1895.]
the same terms, and I will take the trouble
of reading the contents of one of them to
hon. members :
That there are at present 176 boroughs and
municipal districts in the colony that collectively
levy and expend annually on their local requirements a sum of about £500,000, thus saving the
general revenue that_ amount of money annually.
That only about 2,479 square miles in the
colony are now under the provisions of the 1\Iunicipalities Act of 1867, leaving about 303,000
square miles that are incorporated, and at present not levying any special ra~es or contributions towards their local roads, ways, bridges,
or local requirements.
That if the unincorporated portions of the
colony were placed under some form of municipal or local government and were locally rated
at a reasonable amount, it is estimated that a
sum of about £750,000 a year would be collected
in rates, which sum would relieve the general
revenue to that extent; and thereby partially, if
not wholly, save the annual roads and bridges
vote, which now comes out of the pocket of the
general taxpayer.
That by placing the whole of the colony under
municipal or local government the money would
be locally expended, thereby saving much time,
money, and cost of administmtion.
That the boroughs and municipal districts
of the colony already contribute at the rate of
£1 5s. 8d. per head of the population within incorporated districts, and lOs. 6d. per cent. of
tho total annual value of all ratable property
towards the cost of their local requirements.
That your petitioners respectfully urge that
in any system of land-taxation it would he unjust to your petitioners and to those within the
incorporated districts of the colony that they,
who are at present paying high local rates, thereby relieving the general revenue to the extent
aforesaid, should be called upon to pay the same
rate of land-tax as those landholders outside of
incorporated areas who are paying nothing towards local rates. That such a proposal, if carried
out, would press heavily and inequitably on all
lands within municipal areas, would necessarily
reduce the value of such lands, would injuriously
prejudice the obligations that many existing
municipalities have incurred, would reduce the
amounts of their rates, curtail the employment of
labour, and hampet· existing corporations in their
contracts and municipal works.
Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your
honorable House that, in dealing with the measure for the imposition of :t land-tax, they will,
in the first instance, either pass a measure of
local self-government and thereby put all the
people of the country on the same municipal
level, or that they will make a fair and equitable
exemption from such land-tax in respect of all
those lands that are already under the provisions
of the Municipalities Act of 1867.
These are very cogent reasons why the
municipalities should be exempt from land
taxation. The petitions which have been
sent in represent 500,000 people of the
Assessment Bill.
1803
colony, and I think we have a perfect right
to grant them the relief asked for. It is all
very well to argue that the municipalities
·obtain benefit for the taxation imposed
upon them ; but that is not so. They are
not only taxed upon local improvements,
but they are taxed by the general government for the construction of roads
and bridges and for other improvements.
Therefore it is only fair that they should be
exempt from taxation, at any rate until we
have a general local government bill. I
have indicated that I am gojng to vote
against the second reading of the bill. I
do not wish to enter into abstruse and
complicated calculations. That is not my
forte, and it has been clone in a very
forcible way by several hon. members. If
I had been ever so much in favour of the
second reading of the bill, the speeches
which have been made by hon. members
whom I have named would have converted
me, and induced me to vote against it. It
is a most unjust measure. We have been
·told by the Representative of the Government that the Government will oppose the
amendments which have been indicated,
and we have no evidence that they will be
agreed to. Therefore, I do not see why we
should go into Committee for the purpose
of emasculating the bill. We have had
forcible speeches against the measure. The
hon. member, Mr. Kater, who made a forcible speech, which must have converted
any one who was in favour of the bill,
startled hon. members ·by informing them
that if he did not vote for the second reading of the measure he would not vote
against it, but would most likely leave the
Chamber. Well, I call that cowardice,
and I am astonished at any one of the
standing of the hon. member making such
a confession. If I had been in favour of·
the second reading of the bill the bon.
member's speech would have converted me
dead against it. The bon. member, in a
brief but almost as forcible speech as any
which has been delivered, spoke against
the measure, and then told us that he did
not intend to v.ote against it, because the
mandate of the people was in favour of the
bill with the exemptions. I like fair play:
If we pass the second reading of the bill,
and it is amended in anything like the
direction contemplated, it will rejoice the
hearts of a <>reat many of the Opposition.
It has been "'said to me that it is a capital
Fourtl~ night.
1804
Land and Income
[COUNCIL.]
game for this House to play to pass the
second reading, and amend the bill in the
way proposed, as it would put the Government in a hole. I shall be no party to any
action of that kind. If I could not defeat
the Government in a· fair way I would not
drive them into a hole. I know there will
be great rejoicing in a particular camp if
what is intended to be done succeeds.
With regard to the question of municipalities, if we amend the bill in the direction
indicated I should think the Government
ought to gladly accept the amendment
in reference to excluding municipalities.
When the Premier, on the 27th November
of last year, was speaking on the first
assessment bill, he said this :
·Assessment Bill.
important, solid, well-built town. It has managed to keep outside the sphere of municipal
government, and I suppose there is no town with
better roads or streets than Corowa. All that
is done by the national treasury at the expense
of the general taxpayers, and not one penny is
contributed by the citizens of that town towards
that very well managed evasion of their incHvidual duties. There are a number of other towns
in New South \Vales, over 100, perhaps not so
important as Corowa, in the same category.
They are inhabited by people who, from lack
of public spirit, or from some narrow selfish
motives, have contrived to evade their own individual obligation with respect to the works in
their own localities. I think the House will
agree with me, without a dissentient voice, that
the time has come when those who are destitute
of the necessary public spirit and honesty to.
form municipalities, ought to be compelled to do
so.
I confess that the differences between persons
living in municipal areas and persons living be.
yond municipal areas constitute a substantial
Those are the views of the Premier, with
injustice at present to those who are within . w'hieh I am entirely in accord. I think
municipal areas. In the case of those outside
they come in very well in support of the
municipal areas, those local works which ought
amendment, the hon. member, Mr. Trickett,
to be constructed under municipal authority are
intends to move upon my amendment. Of
not left to the private individuals to construct,
course, if I had any chance of taking part
but on the contrary, the funds of the whole
in the consideration of the bill in Commitcommunity are drawn upon to construct the intee I would help the hon. and learned memdividual local works which are wanted by those
individuals who are able to keep themselves beber, Mr. R. E. O'Connor, as far as I could
yond the pale of municipal law. It is that which
to carry the amendments of which he has
makes the injustice to those who live within
given notice-to strike out the whole of the
municipal areas, because those without take the
land-tax exemption and to reduce the inmoney which equally belongs to those within to
come-tax exemption to £1(10. But I will
perform local services· for those without while
be no party to passing the second reading
those within municipal areas have to pay their
of the bill if it is to be emasculated in the
own expense. Consequently, I think I was
way proposed.
right in my view that the whole of the residents of the country, as regards their indiviAmendment proposed.
dual local works, should be placed upon as equal
The
Hon. Dr. CULLEN : After what
a footing as possible, because it would, as a
has been said, and by way of anticipation
matter of fact, although not perhaps unjust,
of what I assume the hon. member, Mr.
seem unjust, and certainly be most unequal, if
Trickett, means to say, I feel bound to add
a national land-tax were imposed upon a counsomething to the debate, though much
try situated in such an extraordinary way as
this is with reference to the spread of municipal
against my inclination.
institutions. As hon. members know, out of
The Hon. W. J. TRICKETT : The hon.
310,000 square miles, only 2,000 square miles of
and learned member might have let me
our territory are under any form of municipal
say what I had to say first!
government. The residents of the other 308,000
The Hon. Dr. CULLEN : I think that
square miles have all their local works for their
own individual convenience constructed at the
possibly it would be better for the hon.
expense of the state. The persons within munimember to hear what I have to say. I am
cipal areas h~tve, therefore, not only to construct
so heartily sick of this eternal taxation
their own local works, but they have also, as
squabble, I so utterly resent the unreasoncontributors to a national treasury, to pay for
able preponderance which it has assumed
the works of those who have not taken upon
in our political controversaries for ye::trs
themselves their own local individual burdens.
past, and the wretched uneasiness and
M1·, A. Chapman: In those places the popuunrest of mind which it has created, that
lation is very small !
I would be glad to gi\'e a silent vote for
llf ?', Reid: No. There are a number of imany reasonable compromise which would
portant places, such as Corowa ; that is a very
[The Hon. A. II. Jacob.
Land and I nco me
[17 OcT., 1895.]
see the thing decently buried. Bnt in
spite of what seems tl1e very justifiable
attitude taken by many hon. members,
and the desire displayed to deal with the
matter amicably, and in a spirit of compromise, there are hon. gentlemen who
even now--I say nothing about motives,
because I have always protested against
asking about men's motives-would make
confusion worse confounded, and leave
this thing further off settleme~t than
ever. I want to protest against this ; I
want to guard against some of the mistakes which I may possibly be betrayed
into, through want of proper information,
and against being misunderstood by those
who might suppose that I subscribed to
all the opinions expressed by those in
favour of the bill.
I welcome the attitude of mind of those who, in spite of
their own convictions, acknowledge that
the voters of this country have the right
to express a final voice upon questions of
taxation, and who, in spite of their belief
that a mistaken policy is going to be
entered upon, are willing to have the
matter clearly discussed. I protest, however, against the ungracious attitude
which most of ~hose sa.me gentlemen have
shown in entering on the spirit of compromise, the fulsome, not to say almost
offensive praise that is lavished upon the
members of this Chamber for everything
which they do, and the constant suspicion of the motives of everyone who has
uttered a word of criticism upon what
this Chamber and its members happen to
do. With all the admiration I have of
some of the hon. gentlemen who have
spoken in this debate, for their great ability
and true criticism, it is offensive and
childish to eternally drag in the name of
the Premier, to accuse him of everything
dishonest and insincere, to repeat ad
nauseam in every debate and every speech
every foolish word he happens to utter
and every mistake he makes.
If the
the House is going into a spirit of compromise and amicable settlement, let us
leave personalities alone.
The Hon. H. C. DAN GAR : \V ell, let the
Premier stop it !
The Hon. Dr. CULLEN: They are none
the less personalities because they are put
in the shape of criticism of a high political personage. The man has his fault~,
but, surely, matters can be discussed here
Assessment Bill.
1805
without thrusting in his motives, his insincerity, and everything that is bad about
him. He has become a sort of bogy. It
is impossible for him to imagine anything
that is sound or sensible. I£ the people
of the country have made up their minds
on the question of substituting direct for
indirect taxation, let the thiiJg be dealt
with on its merits, and let the Premier
alone. Abuse him as much as he deserves
when the proper time and place comes ;
but surely it is not conciliatory to be
eternally raking up questions .of motiVf~s.
Yet this is what has been done in speech
after speech in this debate. The motives
of the Premier, of the Government, and
of the members of the Assembly, have all
been dragged in. Even the hon. member, Mr. Jacob, for whose great abilities
and information I have the highest respect,
could not let that fighting spirit which is
so strong within him be quiet for a .moment, and leave the members of the Legislative Assembly alone. What justification
is there for saying that these men vote
salaries to themselves 1 That statement
can only have one meaning-that they do
it corruptly, in spite of the interests of the
country.
The Hon. A. H. JACOB : What does the
Premier say with regard to us 1
The Hon. Dr. CULLEN : The Premier
again ! I pass by the Premier now. I am
speaking about the unjustifiable charges
which have been made by the hon. member and others with regard to the motives
of the members of theLegislativeAssembly.
What right has anyone to charge against
a body of men-who, good or bad, arethe choice of the people-that, in introducing an exemption to a certain amount
in this direct taxation scheme, they had
the motive of saving their own pockets,.
and leaving their own salaries untouched 'I'
This eternal question of motives is the·
disease of politics in this country. There
is not a man who is free from it. It is.
time that the fact was pointed out, and,
if anyone else had pointed it out I would
not have risen.
Motives ! Sincerity !
What earthly use is there in raking up·
questions of sincerity in public discussions 1 We may have our own reasons,
and good reasons, for believing that politicians do corrupt things perhaps every
day ; but if every questio~ propose~ is to
be discussed upon the basis of motiVes-
Fourth night.
1806
Land and Income
[COUNCIL.]
which no man on earth can fathom,
because no man can read another man's
mind-no successful decision in politics
can ever be arrived at. This House, with
all its good services, has set a very bad
example to the people in eternally raking
up and suggesting the vilest and most
corrupt motives. vVhat right has anyone
to suggest that the voters were bribed
into accepting this scheme because certain
exemptions were introduced into it, by
which they were led to believe they would
escape and~ have the pleasure of putting
their hands into other men's pockets 1
Supposing it is true, are we likely to cure
it by allowing all our decisions on political
questions to be coloured by these vile
suspicions 7 I say, No ! I cannot get up
any enthusiasm over questions of taxation; hut this is a question which has
come to be settled, and, in spite. of every
effort to make it impossible for this or any
government to arrive at a final settlement
of it, it is every day more in need of
being settled, and will be settled whether
we like it or not. The question is whether
we shall keep the country in suspense
any longer than we can help. I welcome
the attitude of those who say tlmt the
. way is now clear for arriving at a compromise. It is true that there was a long
discussion about the nature of the bill ;
but the Government, by acquiescing in
both houses in the ruling that it is not
one of those bills which cannot be altered
by the Council-which was practically
the question which was decided in the
Assembly--have taken a stand which
makes it reasonable, if this House thinks
fit, to propose and carry amendments in
the bill.
The Ron. A. H. JACOB : That could
not possibly have been Mr. Speaker's
ruling. He had no power to say anything with regard to our action !
The Ron. Dr. CULLEN : I did not
say that that was his ruling. I explained
that the effect of his ruling was to show
that the bill belonged to a class which
was not exempt from amendment by this
House. He was asked to say whether it
was a taxation bill. I know that the
hon. member, Mr. Jacob, made a distinction when the matter was under discussion the other night, which perhaps
had not sufficient justice done to it, in
saying that the question was not whether
[The Hon. Dr. Cullen.
Assessment Bill. ·
this was a taxation bill, but whether the
amendment would have the effect of adding to the taxation of the country. The
mistake which the hon. member made was
in not recognising that, if the bill did 1wt
introduce taxation, the amendment suggested by the hon. member, 1\fr. R. E.
O'Connor, could not increase it, and that
when you answered the question about
the bill, you answered the question about
the amendment. We have had the ruling
in both houses that this bill does not
belong to a class which is exempt ft·om
amendment by the Council. That being
so, whatever blame n1ay have been thrown
on the Council previously for interfering
with the bill, I do not think that it can
have the same weight now. The acquiescence of the Government in both rulings
has taken the sting out of a good deal
that might otherwise have· been said
about the action of this House if they
amended the bill. The question, is it
wise and politic to make the amendment,
and whether we should not under the circumstatices abstain from making it, is
another matter altogether. The question
of amendment by this House is one which
may very well be taken into consideration
by the Government, and wisely and temperately considered by them ; but it is a
very bad arrangement, in view of that possibility, to throw suspicion on' every action
of the Government and of the Legislative
Assembly, without the support of which the
Government could not hold powerforaday.
I beseech hon. members not to make it
more difficult for the Government and the
Legislative Assembly to come to a compromise, if they should see fit, or be persuaded by the reasons offered here to do
so. With regard to a great deal of the
criticism that has passed on the bill, I
regard it as completely unanswerable. I
am not now referring to the question of
exemptions, which I shall deal with later
on. With regard to the details of the
bill, in connection with which the hon.
and learned member, Dr. MacLaurin,
showed that the question of mortgages was
dealt with in an improper and unworkable, and, possibly, unjust way, it seems
to me that that criticism is absolutely
unanswerable, and th~t the. Government
is under an obligation to those who made
it. I have not the slightest doubt that, on
being fairly considered, amendments which
Lana and Income
[17 OcT., 1895.]
would get rid of the mischiefs pointed
out in that criticism would be accepted by
the Government. There are other matters
of detail which I do not propose to con-·
sider now; but I want to say something
about the question of exemptions.
I
cannot for the life of me understand the
attitude of many of those who admit that
an income-tax may fairly contain an exemption, but who say that a land-tax
should not-that there is absolutely no
justification for it in a land-tax. I do not
care whether they are supporters of the
bill or opponents of it, I cannot see the
logic of their contention. The confusion
Df mind which those hon. gentlemen get
into arises in this way : This is a doublebarrelled bill, providing for both a landtax and an income-tax, and it is assumed
that the moment you withdraw .£300 or
£150 from the taxable amount of income
you therefore exempt every man who is
subject to a tax. But you do no such thing.
An enormous number of landholders have
no income except that derived from their
land, and there are thousands of menplanters of orchards, or men occupied in
growing small crops or raising a few cattle
-who, having bought land from the Government·, have sunk in it every penny they
could borrow, and will not get sufficient income from it for the next five years to keep
a cat. If you do not make an exemption in
favour of this man, and you do make an
exemption in favour of every whippersnapper who hangs about town and carries
on a trade, where is your justice 1 If you
make exemptions from the tax on income
in order to leave everyone the means of subsistence, or because you do not want to go
so low that it would not pay to collect the
money, the same applies to the man on the
land. It is said that Henry George is at the
bottom of a great deal of this taxation, but
I think that Henry George is at the bottom of some of the criticisms on the bill.
Some hon. members say that if· you tax
land at all, you must tax every landowner
even if he has only half an acre. Anyone
who looks at the statistics of the Government Statistician will see that there is
a large number of owners who have only
very small areas, and if you do not make
exemptions you will make it impossible
for some of the most valuable settlers in
the country to get a living. An hon.
member asked what benefit it would be to
Assessment Bill.
1807
the country if men went out of Sydney. I
say that the men who go into the country
and do pioneering work, working longer
hours than anyone else, exposed to all
weathers, who have ·absolutely no encouragement., who are raising produce and
have no road over which to carry it., and
who cannot with all the labour· of themselves and their families make as much
as a decent bootmaker in the city, who
has the comforts of civilised life around
him--those men who go out and undertake those hardships are of greater service
to the country than those who remain in
the town. \Vhere is the justice if you
allow exemptions from the income-tax of
not allowing exemptions from. the landtax~ You will not do justice if you sweep
away the exemptions. vVhat shall be the
amount of the exemptions is another question. I think the exemption at present
is a ridiculously small amount. By being
exempt to the amount of £475, the landowner gets .£2 knocked off the tax; but a
shoemaker who makes.£300 a year saves£7
lOs., which would have to be paid in taxation
but for the exemption undertheincome-tax.
Both the friends and the opponents of the
bill seem to think that there is less to say
about exemptions from· a land-tax than
there is about exempti~:ms from an incometax. Another thing which is quietly assumed, though it is totally'-:vithout foundation, is this : It is said that -if the bill
passes a very large part of the population
of the country will escape taxation altogether, and it is said that those who escape
will make use of their power to filch money
from the pockets of those who are better
off than themselves. Yet on looking at
the estimates of ways and means I find
that there will be over .£1,000,000 of permanent taxation through the Customs, notwithstanding the passing of this bill. I do
not think it is a very sensible thing to say
that unless a man smokes or drinks he will
escape taxation. It is not correct to say
that those who do not pay the land or income tax will escape taxation, and that
they will make use of their political power
to spend the money of other people. The
tariff bill does not propose to take away
the taxation all at once on articles at the
Customs. For many years there ·will be
customs taxes still imposed. Until those
taxes are swept away the whole people
will pay taxation through the Customs,
Fourth night.
1808
Land and Income
[COUNCIL.]
and there will be time enough then for the
question to arise-whether it is necessary to
prevent those who are paying no taxes from
having a voice in spending money raised by
taxes on other people. I wish to say one
other thing with regard to the amendment
to be proposed by the hon. member, Mr.
Trickett. I am very much struck by the
case made out by the municipalities. They
l1avehadill-natured things said about them,
and they have been tempted over and over
again by the selfishness of residents outside
their boundaries who do not contribute
anything towards local revenue and who
get grants of public money from the Treasury. I know that the governments for
years past have been giving subsidies to
the municipalities-and it is one of the
few decent things which the governments of
this country can take credit for-for the
last twenty years. Although every government was blamable for not introducing a
general local government scheme, it was
better to afford even moderate encouragement to towns to incorporate themselves
than to let all the Government expenditure on public works be given to those who
contribute nothing out of their own pockets
towards it. But what claim have these
municipalities shown themselves to be entitled to 1 The injustice which they complain of is one which they have been
suffering from for the last twenty-five years,
or as long as they have been in existence.
They have been contributing taxation to
be spent at the whim of residents in parts
of the country where nothing is specially
paid towards local works. That injustice
has been going on for years, and the remedy
which should have been applied in previous years should now be applied. It is
the solemn duty of the Government to
'bring in a local government bill without
the smallest delay, and to see it passed.
But the municipalities do not establish a
claim to escape from national taxation.
The national taxation which the bill proposes to impose upon all residents is not
such as to cause injustice to residents in
municipalities. It is taxation which only
bears upon them equally with the rest,
and if the money is properly expended the
residents in the municipalities have no more
right to complain than anyone else. If a
general local government system were
established then all would be on an equality. That is the only way to make them
[The Hon. lJr. Cullen.
.Assessment Bill.
equal. Look at the anomaly that we
should have if certain persons had the
right to pay their own land-taxes and
spend the money themselves, whilst the
residents in other parts of the country hact
to pay their taxes to the central government, the money to be expended by the
central government. The residents in
municipalities would be the first to see the
injustice of such an arrangement. The
land-tax will form a very small portion of
the revenue of the country. Those whO<
paid their money directly into the Treasury
would consider that they were entitled to
have it out of the Treasury to be spent in
making roads and other works, but the
Government would say to residents in
municipalities: You have chosen to collect your own taxes, you can live on those
t:J.xes. It would be found to be an unworkable condition of things. The real remedy
for the injustice if a national system of
taxation is introduced is to pass a general
scheme of local government. How on earth
men can get up such enthusiasm about protection, about single tax, and other taxation questions, and at the same time find
the people of the country living in a barbarous condition of things which degrades
political life into something below the
vestry system of the old country and causes
a general scramble for public money-how
they can do this shows a species of mania
in which the relative importance of things:
fails to be recognised.
The Hon. W. J. TRICKETT: Could the
hon. and learned member name one country where there is partial local government
and a land-tax 1
The Hon. Dr. CULLEN : I am afraid
I am not well enough informed.
The Hon. J. H. ·WANT: Does the hon.
member blame the Government for not
accepting that amendment in the Local
Government Bill1
HoN. MEMBERS : No !
The Hon. Dr. CULLEN : The total
national taxation is not proposed to be
increased to the amount of ld. by this
bill. The only question for those who
like myself cannot get up any enthusiasm
about rival taxation schemes is this: if
£500,000 is taken off customs taxation and
we have to get it by direct taxation, will
it cause a greater injustice than is produced by the present system 1
HoN. ME~IBERS : Yes !
Land and Income
[17 OcT., 1895.]
The Hon. Dr. CULLEN : It is easy to
answer "yes," but much harder to find
reasons. One hon. member trotted out
this argument, that because rich people
pay on carriages, lace, and jewelry, and
the poor do not, therefore rich people are
more heavily taxed in proportion to their
means than are poor people. But it has
been pointed out over and over again that
the present system of taxation does press
more hardly on the poor than on the rich.
Anyone ought to be convinced from the
remarks of the hon. member, Mr. Puisford, and the calculations which he made
with regard to the incomes of the rich and
the poor, showing what would be required
for subsistence and showing what they
contribute in taxation. No one can deny
that the incidence of taxation does press
inequitably on the poor.
The Hon. J. HosKINS: That is the state
of things in England !
The Ron. Dr. CULLEN: It is the state
of things here because the same condition
in an ,aggravated form exists here under
our present fiscal system.
The Hon. J. H. WANT: It is more so
here because the poorer classes pay more
through the Custom-house !
The Hon. Dr. CULLEN: I shall not
waste time in detailing the facts. It is so
much easier to fall back on mere general
statements than to carry the facts in mind.
If hon. members have not heard Moses and
the prophets they will not be persuaded
though one rose from the dead. This
has been proclaimed by every thinker on
the subject for many years. I do not think
that any one who has learned the a b c of
political science can deny it. Admitting
that there is an inequality at the expense
of the poor; and admitting that there
will be an inequality later on at the expense of the rich, will the inequality produce greater hardship or do more injustice than does the present system 1 I believe that if that question is investigated it
will be found that th(l inequality and the
injustice will be very much less, because
it must be remembered that the bill does
not single out the rich and leave them
without any exemption at all. It applies
the same rule to both poor and rich; they all
start level. Another remark which thehon.
and learned member, Mr. C. G. Heydon,
made-and which I think is of equal rank
Assessment Bill.
1809
to his remark about carriages and lacewas that most of the small owners have
improvements on their land and do their
own work, in fact he considered them
rather lucky individuals, because neither
their labour nor their improvements are
taxed. Leaving the improvements Rlone,
poor devils, why should their labour be
taxed more than anyone else's 1 The men
who go out from the towns and face all
the hardships of pioneer life for years, and
who are not able to earn as much as a
mere labourer in town, are to be congratulated because their labour and their improvements are not taxed. There is no
escaping from this: that not merely does
this exemption, whatever amount it may
be, apply to both rich and poor, but these
improvements which the rich are able to
do very much better than the poor can do
are wholly exempt from taxation.
The Hon. Dr. MAcLAURIN : That is the
unfairness of the bill !
TheHon.Dr.CULLEN: Possiblyso. I
know the hon., gentleman attaches a good
deal o£ importance to this idea that the increment of value is being ta.xed and that it
is not a property-tax. I cannot see-and I
do not say that because I do not see it there
is nothing in i_t, because I never hear the
hon. and learned member say anything·
which is not worthy of grave consideration-how if you impose any property-ta,x
unless you are going to fix the first valuation and keep that for ever, if you are
going to have periodical valuations, the
increment or t.he decrement can fail to
form an element in the taxable amount_
What earthly reason can there be in the
assertion that this tax is objectionable
because it is an increment tax 1 The mere
fact of your deducting the value of the
improvements does not make it a more
objectionable tax. It has been suggested
to-night that that unfortunate will-o'-the
wisp, HenryGeorgA, is responsible for even
that ; that because he came here and was
run after by a certain section of the people
this proposal to exempt improvements was
introduced in this bill. The objection to the
taxation of improvement& was well understood before Henry George's father was
born. It is one of the evils of our present
municipal system that it does a palpable
injustice to those who improve their lands.
The moment a man is enterprising enough
to improve his land, up go his rates. It
Fourth nigltt.
1810
Land and I nco me
[COUNCIL.]
discourages improvements.
I do not suppose that any system of taxation can be
made to kill two birds with one stone,
that either protective duties can be made
to make everyone rich, happy, and comfortable, or that a single-tax on land can
do the same. Bnt although I do not think
you have any right to expect that any
great and wonderful benefit will arise in
some other way than from raising revenue,
I do recognise that you are bound to choose
the least of all the evils which are incident
to all systems ?f taxation. Surely that
is the proper test. In estimating the sum
at which every man is to be taxed, if you
find .that that avoids the evil of discouraging improvements on land, then I
think you are acting wisely when you fix
your assessment on that principle. It
seems to me that if one could only dissociate this question from the personal
element which always creeps in, from the
idea that some labour party is trying to
subvert the Constitution, or that some
George or Bellamy is trying to revolutionise the world, and deal with the thing
practically, a great number of the difficulties would vanish. I do not say that if I
had been free to choose I would have thought
it worth while to go to all this trouble to
substitute direct for indirect taxation, but
I do recognise that those who are in
favour of direct taxation have an enormous amount of reason on their side, and
they have pointed out certain evils which
will be avoided if the change is made.
The nation having made up its mind on
that, as has been recognised by most of
the thoughtful speakers in this debate,
the proper attitude fot· this House is
the most conciliatory and amicable one
it can assume. Hon. members, in spite
of all the provocation they have got, are
not to make it more difficult for the
other Honse to accept any suggestion
which they may have to make. They
are not to make it impossible for the Government to give impartial and friendly
consideration to their proposals. I do not
want hon. gentlemen to think that I do
them any injustice, or that I say for a moment that they have not received provocation. Not one of us is perfect, and hon.
gentlemen will confess, I have no doubt,
that they may have fallen into errors just
as others have done, and they have not had
the most friendly construction put on the
[The Han. Dr. Cullen.
Assessment Bill.
judgments which they have formed from
time to time. But surely if anyone can
aftord to rise above these considerations,
and to do what is right for right's sake,
this Chamber can. This country has a
great many lessons to learn, and this
House has it in its power to set an example to the people. I think, and have
always thought-and it is one of the
things which reconciled me to the question
of direct taxation-that the moment men
had it forced upon- them, especially the
more comfortable classes, that they were
responsible, that they spoke with the
mouth of the members of the Legislative
Assembly, the sooner there would come
some reform, the sooner there would come
some change of the evils which every
young country is in danger of drifting
into ; but of all the men in the country,
I believe the comfortable classes have, of
late years at any rate, the least record to
show in their efforts to influence men's
judgments at election time, and to see
that their minds and voices shall be heard
in the halls of the Legislative Assembly.
There has been too much of a desireand ib has received too much encouragement-to look npon this House as the
special representative of the comfortable
classes. That cannot be, and it never
will be. The Legislative Assembly is the
spokesman of both those who are well off
and those who are poorly off; and if they
wish justice to be done, then they must
see that their voice, and not ihe voice
which they profess to look down upon and
be ashamed of-and very little credit it is
to themselves-shall speak for them in
that House. This House has it in its
power-and, if I know anything about it,
a time will come before very long when it
will be fully recognised-to let the Assembly see that the Council at any rate
recognise that that House is the representative voice of the nation. I care
nothing for this expression, " The mandate
of the people." It is a new-fangled term
which until recently was never heard of in
English constitutional history. It is only
appropriate in the mouths of those who
believe that a member of Parliament is a
mere agent with every detail of his work
put into his mouth, and that he only
comes to the House and speaks the words
of others who are outside. Surely the
position of a member of Parliament is that
Land and Income Assessment. [17 OcT., 1895. J
of a representative, not that of an agent or
a delegate 1 Therefore, when the Assembly
speaks the people speak. If any ·people in
this country think that the people's voice
is not rightly reported by that Assembly,
they themsel 1·es are to blame unless they
are ,quite certain that they have made
every effort in their power to avoid it.
This question arises here, and it is a question for us to consider very gravely and
temperately; and while I give every credit
to those who temperately wish to see this
question settled, I hope their suggestions
will be wisely and temperately considered.
I do not believe in doing away with the
amount of the exemption from the landtax. I think it is a matter which may fairly
be considered whether the amount could
not b'y way of compromise be reduced,
and whether the exemption from the in{)Ome-tax could not be reduced, and not, by
way of amendment on the second reading
of the bill, to make it impos~ible for its
suggestion to receive any consideration if
the Government is going to retain any selfrespect.
The Ron. \V. J. TRICKETT : Are the
Government willin~r to adjourn the debate 1
The Hon. J. H. WANT : My hon.
friend intends to propose a very important
amendment in regard to municipal lands,
and I want to hear what he has to say in
favour of it before I address the House.
The Ron. vV. J. TRICKETT : I am not
prepared to speak to-night!
The Hon. J. H. WANT: I think it
would be hardly fair to ask me to address
the House until I have heard what my
hon. friend has to say on this question.
I am quite willing if lie does not desire to
speak to-night to adjourn the debate. I
certainly think it would be much fairer
to me to hear what he has to say before I
speak, as it is rather an important amendment which he proposes to move.
The Hon. W. J. TRICKETT : I am
much obliged to the hon. and learned
member for his courtesy. I am not prepared to say what I wish to say to-night,
and as it is apparently the wish of hon.
members, I move:
That the debate be adjourned until Tuesday
next.
Motion agreed to; debate adjourned.
House adjourned at 8 ·58 p.m.
Alleged Poisoning.
1811
~zzembll!,.
Thursday, 17 October, 1895.
11eyiziatibe
Gold Leases-Alleg-ed Poisoning at Canally Station-ExMember's Pass in Pawnshop-Mr. E. H. Wilshire:
Crown Law Offices-Bradley's Head Leases-Referee in
Fight: Placke and Barker-Clubs supplying- Liquor
'Vithout n. License-Captain Murray, Newington
Asy~
lmn-Fisheries Bill-Capcrtee TramwayBill-Redfern
Electric Lighting Bill-1\facleay River Entrance-Selections by ~Iartin Tully-Yentilation of .:i\Iines-Gold·
fields: Mining Conference-Prisoner Johnson-Pay~
m.entof Salaries from Loa.nVotes-PatentsLaw Atnend~
ment Bill-Adjournment (Travelling- Stock Routes)Elections and Qualifications Committee-Consolidated
lte,·cnue Fund Bill (Suspension of Standing Orders)Federation Enabling Bill-Order of Business-Committee of Elections and Qualifications-Public Service
Bill-New :i\Iember-Consolidated Revenue Fund Bill
-Ways and ~leans.
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair.
GOLD LEASES.
M.r. HURLEY askf~d the SECRETARY
FOR MINEs,-(1.) What is the number of
gold leases in existence in New South
Wales~
(2.) What is the'numherof gold
leases in existence in New South '\Vales
with the rent paid up 1 (3.) What is the
number of gold leases in existence in New
South \Vales in arrears of rent 7
Mr. S. SMITH answered,-(1.) 928.
(2.) 746. (3.) 182; of these 123 are in
course of cancellation ; the others are only
just due, or, in a few cases, time has been
allowed for payment..
ALLEGED POISONING AT CANALLY
STATION.
Mr. FEGAN (for Mr. SLEATII) asked
the ~£INISTER OF JUSTICE,-Is it a fact, as
reported, that Brown, who was tried a_nd
acquitted at Deniliquin for poisoning at
Canally Station, haR confessed to the crime1
Mr. GOULD answered,-I am informed
that there is no truth in the statement
that Brown confessed to the crime. A
report was circulated in D~niliquin the
night of the trial by a discharged prisoner,
who was drunk at the time, that Brown
told him he had pnt poison in a flour tin;
but next morning, when sober, he denied
the statement, and ·positively stated Brown
had never spoken to him i~ gaol. Th~
gaol officials state that the discharged ~;m­
soner could not have had any conversatiOn
with Brown when in gaol.