Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 29 October 1917, Page 2

Tite discussion raised in the House last week by Messrs Colvin, Webb and others on tho Land Laws Amendment Hill was evidently well-timed in the effort of the members to gather the. scope intended by section seven of the measure in question. The clause coals with tire collection of land revenue, and provides that “there shall from time to time be appointed an officer of the public service, to be known as the Controller of Land Revenue.” It is also enacted that all powers, functions and duties conferred or imposed on Receivers of Land Revenue, shall on the appointment of the Controller of Land Revenue, be deemed to be transferred to and exercised and performed by tlie Controller, and not by the Receiver. Then comes tho particular stipulation which aroused the curiosity of the members as to the true intent- oi the proposed Enactment: “Whereby any Statute or other authority, a Receiver of" Land Revenue is authorised to pay any revenues and other, public moneys to any local authority, or to pay any such moneys into a deposit account, pending the payment thereof to any such local authority, the Receiver shall after the appointment of the Controller of Land Revenue, pay such moneys into the public account, and all moneys so paid into the public account; may without further appropiation be paid by tlie Minister of Finance to the local authority . certified by the Control ler of Land Revenue to be entitled to tho same.” Apparently the Premier who wa a in charge of tho not give any adequate reason for the proposal which is a radical change in the admin istraton of local moneys. It would appear that the Receivers, the officers, on the spot, are the most competent to deal with the allocation of the funds, fully understanding local boundaries and situations. Some tangible reason is certainly requisite, for efficiency sake alone.

Tub proposal put forward in the Land Laws Amendment, just referred to and the specific attention to payments to local bodies, appears to have a colorable connection with the task of the legal deputation in Wellington last week, the mission of which was to get the Government to carry out the law a s regards the distinction between land revenue, .as affected by the provisions relating to territorial and goldfields receipts. Mr. Massey in the discussion mi the House reiterated again that the local bodies had no legal claim, and for this assertion he advanced the plea of the statute of limitations. The plea itself is subject to the legal test under the common sense view of the actual conditions of the payments, rifhich are pi continuous process arid not a determining payment at any period. Besides on the vexed point at issue the Government does not supply a clear statement of the revenue as to actual receipts, so that the local bodies have not the opportunity of determining whether or not they receive all they are entitled to. It was because of the obscure position of the process of settlement, that one of the members in tlie House wisely asked for a commission of enquiry t- termine exactly where the local bodies stood in the matter. Tlie practice is to remit all gold-fields revenue in a lump sum from month to month without any statement

of detail. la point of fast fa isjr.rd to one largo sum of royalties running into some thousands of pounds, the Government officers were in n quandary what to do with the amount, and to ho on the safe side paid the amount into the public account. Yet, a large proportion of tluu> sum would he justly due to the local bodies. It will be for the bodies concerned to interest themselves in this large financial question until they get a measure of justice on settled loyal lines.