The following are extracts from the Second Reading speech by the Colonial Treasurer, Thomas D Moffat, who introduced the Gold Export Duty Bill into the Legislative Assembly on 11 August 1864.
'At the time of separation the Colony of Queensland inherited from New South Wales an Export Gold Duty Act, which levied a tax of 2s.6d. per ounce on gold, but as there was no attraction at that time to induce the Government to collect it, and it was deemed inadvisable to obstruct the development of any industry which might increase, and prove an ultimate source of revenue to the Colony, the Act was repealed.
Since then, the gold producing districts of the colony had increased, and were at present of considerable extent.
New gold fields were being heard of daily in the neighbourhood of Gladstone and the Darling Downs.
No doubt the Bill was unpopular with the diggers, but this was but natural and should scarcely be urged as an argument against the measure.
| 'No doubt the Bill was unpopular with the diggers' |
But the House had already laid down the principle, that what ever portion of the community engaged in special pursuits required aid from the state for special purposes, such persons should contribute something towards that aid furnished by the Government. |
The effect of the Bill before the House would fall only on the prosperous digger: it would affect the man who did succeed in finding gold, and would not fall on all alike. The tax would also be the only means of ascertaining the amount of gold produced in the colony; at present, owing to the scattered nature of the population and other causes, there was a difficulty in finding any reliable information on this point.
Clause one set forth that it was only to “gold in its natural state” that the Act applied.
It appeared to be an accidental mistake of the parliamentary draughtsman, who had drawn his Bill from the New South Wales Act in existence here at separation, and who had retained the old duty of 2s.6d., instead of 1s.6d., the amount which the Government intended to levy.
It was to be regretted that the error above referred to, whether attributable to the draughtsman or the printer, should have occurred.'