NATIVE RATES

Gisborne Times, Volume LXI, Issue 9855, 7 November 1924, Page 3

NATIVE RATES

NEW POWER FOR LOCAL

BODIES

“asOT ’ WORTH TWOPENCE,”

SAYS MR LYSNAR

MAKES THINGS COMFORTABLE r OR, THE TRUSTEES !

WELLINGTON, Nov, 1. Speaking- on the Native Land Amendment Bill, Mr Lysnar said: ‘T recognise that tins Bill is art honest attempt to ilvect a very cbmcult question, but I do suggest to tho Minister that instead of asking the House to pass-it at this lute stage of the session, he should allow it to stand down until it can be referred to the local authorities. 1 can tee difficulties even in the hurried glance Ii have been able- to take .of the Bill, while the matter has been before the House. In the first place, by clause 6, trustees, which includes Maori Land Boards, Native Trustees, and the East Coast Commissioner, are only required to pay all rates levied upon ai eas vested in him out of the net revenue of all land's held by him for the same group of beneficial owners. The Hon. Mr. Ngata: That is the present law. ‘•LOCAL BODIES WILL BE LEFT HIGH AND DRY.”

Mr Lysnar: Ido not think so. "Why it should bo confined to tho net revenue, I cannot conceive. Many of these lands are not paying their way. They arc going back, and there will be no met revenue, so that the county councils will get nothing. Unless there is a profit there is nothing to paw, and probably the local bodies will be left high and dry. The only alternative .is for the county councils or the Land Boards to apply to the Court for a charging order, but that power is limited to two years’ rates, it would be farcical for a county council to resort to court procedure merely to get a charge for two years’ rates only. There should be rJo limit to the time, or, at least, a very substantial time should be given—say, live years. How can county councils l)e expected to engage lawyers to go through the ramifications of appearing before the Land Court for the charge in respect of two years’ rates? The complaint of the county councils to-day is that they cannot- get the rates, because the present procedure is too cumbersome. But this is even more cumbersome. And why confine it to two years? The period for Europeans is three years. Why curtail it? I can see what the position is —that the county council view of the matter lias nut been considered. It has been considered from the point- of view of the trustees and corporate bodies. It puts them in a very comfortable position. There are a great number of corporate bodies controlled by Native Trustees, who are sheepfanning in the East Coast. All they have to do is to bring up a- balancesheet that shows no profit, and they are immediately excused from any liability for payment, or if it is not paid within nine months, it then becomes a debt due by the beneficial owners, according to section 9. In applying to the Court, the local body lias to show that it is dealing with the same group of owners. It would he very unreasonable to ask a county council to find out- who were the owners. It is a most difficult thing to do. j WHAT HAPPENS NOW? j

Hon. Mr Coates: As a matter of fact, the Bill has precisely the opposite effect to what the lion, member claims.

Mr Lysnar: lam simply taking the clauses as tlicv are.

Hon, Mr Coates: What happens now ?

Mr Lysnar: They have to take out a summons and get- a judgment against the owners. They must do that every three years. Hon. Mr Coates: But they go to the Court now, and ascertain the position before they take out a sun> mons; and the Court helps them'. Mr Lysnar: Of course, I admit that; a led that there are some good points in this Bill, but L contend that the matter should be referred to county councils for their consideration. I can see difficulties when tho council's try to get money under this procedure, especially when the period is limited to two years. The rates may amount- to only a few pounds. Suppose? for instance, they amounted to a few shillings, how would they get the amount? This procedure would not help them —it is too expensive. Take the ease of the East Coast Commissioner and the Native Public Trustee. If the land does not earn sufficient money to pay its rates, the thing accumulates on the beneficial owners of the land. But. when it comes to four years overdue, nothing is to lie paid by the trustees or the corporate bodies —they get a clean receipt. I am sure the county councils would not approve of that, and it does wot aid them to' improve their position. I seriously ask the Minister, if lie does not proceed with this Bill, to extend that period of twb years to net less than live. In fact, in my opinion, there should lie no linin'b to the period. There may bo only a very, small amount involved, but. whatever it is, why-should' it ho lost? Then, again, sub-clause (6) of clause 9 states- that “the Court may remit the whole or any part of any rate so levied, and thereupon such rates, or so much thereof as shall be so remitted, shall be deemed to be discharged.” So, after the council has gone to all this trouble, the court may remit. It gives no security to the Council at all. That clause seems to me to be a very extreme one, and oi.'e which again favors tho Natives arid the trustees to run these things and make a failure ol' them. I produced figures in this* House on a previous occasion, which showed that on practically every block the East Coast Commissioner was farming there, was a loss. Arid ho was running a total of 20 000 sheep, and under tills Bill, where there is no profit, there is no liability on the trustee to pay at all. SIR M. POM ARE INTERVENES. Tho Hon. Sir M. Pomare:. What would you do? Sail the land and stock ?

Mr Lysnnr: No, I do not suggest that. But you should bo able to take tu charge over the laud, subject to the rights and title of the Commissioner. Under this Bill you can only take a charge against tire beneficial owners’ interest —-and that is worth absolutely nothing. Take the Mangatu Block No. administered by the Commissioner. There it was shown that there was no revenue to pay the land tax. The property is worth half a million, and evidence was produced to show that it could not pay ordinary land tax, and this House was compelled to reduce it. The trustees get right out under this Bill, ai'-d the*county councils have a charge against these beneficial interests —which arc not worth twopence. I wish new to refer to another peculiar clause, which, it seems to me, is wrong and pernicious, and will hamper dealings with Native lands. It prevents' any dealing by the, owner “with the'land affected by any charge without the leave of the. Court or the consent of the local authority or person entitled to the charge.” Win should this- Bill rtstrirt Natives dealing with their ■land without the consent of the County -Council or the Court? It is all right to make Cue land subject to pavmeut. A, 1 man might arrange to sell Ids land or to lease it and say that the tax has to be paid. But, to provide that a man cannot deal w’tli tin's land, without a prior consent, is altogether wrong. The whole of fil'd Bill is to prevent dealings in Native land and enable trustee* to ,Cfofc out of* tlicir linbilit'es. I expect the Honorab’e member lor Eastern Maori district will

tell me I do not know what I am talking about. But let lion, members read sub-clause (8) of clause 9, and they will see that I. am correct. “A DANGEROUS CLAUSE.” ! '“lt -is provided—“A charge grant-, eel hereunder shall have tho effect or preventing any dealings by the owners thereof with tho land sheeted by any charge without the leave of the Court or the consent of the local authority or person entitled to tlw charge until such charge is paid or secured.” If it had been provided that—“ Any dealings of Nat-.ve land can he made subject to the payment of the 'charge” it would have been 'all right. But the clause says—“ You shall hot do it,” and prevents any dealings. It. seems to me that this would lead to absolute repudiation, if such a .thing is provided. It is only creating difficulties in order to prevent dealings in Nat.ve lands. Clause 11 is a dangerous clause. It provides—

“11. (I) Notwithstanding anything to tlie contrary in the pr.ncipal xVct, a person not being an owner of Native land, shall be deemed to bo an ccoup: or thereof if' he is in actual occupation of such land’ or any part thereof, whether he occup’os the land by virtue of a tenancy or for any fixed period or at will or otherwise howsover, and, whether his occupation thereof is lawful or unlawful.”

The next clause makes the same person liable at the suit of tho local body or tho Maori Land Beard. His name need not be on the register; lie might be a man of straw, whom the Bounty Council cannot get money out of, and it loses its claim to the land if these proceedings are taken. These are matters, Sir, that the Minister would lie wise to hold over so that the county councils nun consider them.

The Hon. Mr. Coates: Would you like me to withdraw it? Mr Lysnar: No; but why has the Bill come down at tho last minute, and is to he rushed through in one day? There is no excuse for it and I enter my protest against it. I cannot communicate with the County Councils in mv district on the matter. They are very largely interested in it, and sincerely desire to get something done that will put the collection of Native rates in a heller position than .it is in to-day. An far as T can see, this proposal, with a. limitation of two years, will place them in no better position to secure themselves; hut they are horror off as they are. I should prefer that they take the responsibility, and not I; and so in the meantime T can do nothing better than state the position and record my vote against the Bill. “MACHINERY TOO CUMBERSOME.”

On the question that the Bill' he read a third time, Mr Lysnar said—“l want to place on record a few matters supplementary to what I said before the Bill was committed, and in answer to what was said by the member for the Eastern Maori District. I am sorry that the Minister lias not seen his way to defer the consideration of the Bill until it could be referred to the County Councils of the Dominion. It will, in my judgment, facilitate the avoidance by the Natives of their Labilities in connection with lands held by trustees and corporate bodies. The machinery is too cumbersome, and the period.of two years in which the necessary steps are to b« taken is too short. J have protested, and I can do no more.

“The lion, member for Eastern Maori, replying to what 1 said with reference to clause 9, said that the period of two years does not affect the rates —that that was only the period during which a- claim could he made. The honorable me/nbe? is in error there, for that clause provides that it shall he .for the rates levied. I will read sub-clause (~) of clause 9:

“With regard to rates due on Native land where it is sought to recover the rates from the botmficial owners thereof, then, as booh as ibis convenient after the rate is levied, but not later than two years thereafter, a- claim for rates against the land shall bo lodged with tire* Registrar.” AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION.

That makes it perfectly plain that iL must be done within two years of the levying of the rates and what County Council in this Dominion can afford to go to the expense of this claim for two years' rate's? As 1 suggested to the Minister, if ho made it five years, there might he something in it. I maintain, therefore, that the remarks of the member for Eastern Maori are not justified by the true construction of the clause. Then lie made another statement—that before any charge can be made, they must clear all other chums. I am quite sure that the honorable member must have made some mistake. They can make a transfer of land subject to any charges on the land —whether for lease, mortgage or sale. It is true, they would have to pay the fees of ihe Native Land Court-, and charges for u certificate .of title: but that is a trivial matter. I fail to ee --’Ly legislation shouTl. he placed on- ihe Statute Book which Sobers anyone from dealhig with Native lands * Mil liens on them. I say that would bo contrary to justice both to 'he Europeans and Natives who own i hose titles. I will quote the exact 'voids of sub-clause (8) of clause “A charge granted hereunder shall have the effect of preventing any dealings by the owners thereof with the laud affected by any charge without leave of the Court the consent of the local authority »w person entitled to the. charge until such charge is paid or secured.” That makes it perfectly clear that if there is a charge for County rates, "nobody can make it legal contract for a mortgage, or a- lease, or sale, or tenancy of any sort, in respect of that land. I say that, is entirely an unreasonable restriction. MR. LYSNAR DRAWS MIL COATES.

i repeat that the whole tenor cf the provision is to complicate dealings with Native lands, tu.tl to give facilities to the Native trustees, and to Native corporate bodies to escape their liabilities for payment of rates to the County Councils. The honorable member said the Native Land Court should have power to remit rates, ’and I agree that, so far as the Mangawaru property is concerned, it should not be rated. It is not necessary, however, to give the Court power to excuse -lands iron rates that are properly rondod. The •County Council might” go to a lot cf trouble; there may bo hundreds oi pounds due to it, and. the Court may say “We will strike it out,”' and the County Council can do nothing. The Court should have the right to say that Native lands not in occupation and without roads should not be rated. But in regard to Nativo lands in occupation the liability should not bo taken away. It is not right to enlarge the exemption to apply to nny-lar.d. It might be land in a 'Wellington suburb, or in the city itself, as long as it is.held by a Native or by a Native trustee. I do not say the Court would exercise its jurisdiction in that case, but it would have tho power. As for my reference to clause H, under which the occupier cf land may be made liable for rates, the honorable member quoted some cases on the East Coast —where pm-sors without' authority put stock uji ■ unoccupied Native land a Well, there ■may be crises of the kind, but I hoped ' that, .the Nativeowners would, have the right to. claim for usd ami occupation. If the provision was confined to the action of the ..County

Council I would hot have much to say, but section 11 makes the trespassers liable at the suit of eithai’ the local body or the Maori Land Board for the" payment of the rates. The responsibility rf the lain! is at once taken off. The land is no ianger liable, and if the Maori Land Board chooses to take action against the so-called occupier, who may turn out to be a person of straw, the local authority loses its right to claim rates against tho land; this is not right. At any rate, I have pm on, record my answer to the. Jun. •member for the Eastern Maori District. The Minister-lias acknowledged himself that he has not .• uL.miltod this Bill to tho County Councils. The Hon. Mr. Coates: No, ! have, not; and I do not intend to do so, cit-her.

Mr Lysnar: I submit that »t l? a matter which should lie retired to them, and also to a commit!;H of this House; neither of which has been clone.—Special.