TIMBER ROYALTIES.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 31 July 1924, Page 9

TIMBER ROYALTIES.

MAINTENANCE OF COUNTRY ROADS. REPRESENTATIONS TO GOVERNMENT. f (BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.! WELLINGTON, July 31. Ihe question of timber royalties for the maintenance of county roads was the subject of a deputation to members of the Government this morning. Some 34 County Councils were represented. and 30 members of Parliament were- associated with the deputation. The deputation was received by Sir Francis Bell, in the • absence oif Mr Massey. Other Ministers present were Sir Heaton Rhodes and the Hon. A. I>. McLeod. The point of view of the local bodies was that ev-er since 1905, when the Act regarding royalties going to local bodies for 'road maintenance was passed, the local bodies considered that they had a claim to the royalties which many of them had been unable to get. The deputation desired that local oodies should be paid back tlie royalties. it was also asked that an advisory board should be set up. as provided for in the Forestry Act, 1921. In many portions of New Zealand where there was heavy timber country the land was not as valuable as in ether parts, and consequently when the timber was removed the local bodies could not collect rates sufficient to maintain the roads. If the royalties were not forthcoming the local bodies would have to fall back on the consolidated funds.

Sir Francis Bell, replying, said Cabinet had not yet considered the report, of the Timber Royalties Commission, and when doing so it would he of great advantage to have before it the criticism of local bodies. The representations of those bodies would have in.st as full consideration as the report of the commission. The question was a difficult one, but, speaking as a former Commissioner of State Forests, he asked them to remem limit was a matter for the Treasury entirely, because the revenue derived from State forests now passed into the Treasury With regard to the revenue derived from forests by the legitimate operations of the Forestry Department, he said that counties should have a portion of it. They must not regard it as a fact that the State forest nolicy was itself, in effect, the depriving of local authorities of revenue, except to a minor extent. The matter would he considered fully when Cabinet came to deal with the question as to how revenue derived from the Department’s operations was to be disposed of.