HAURAKI PLAINS RATES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4330, 14 October 1921, Page 2

HAURAKI PLAINS RATES.

IMPORTANT TEST CASE.

VERDICT FOR THE COUNCIL.

(“Gazette” Staff Reporter.)

One of the most important decisions yet given in respect to local rate cases w.as delivered at the Magistrate’s Court), Thames, on Wednesday, by Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M. Mr E. Walton appeared for the Council, and Mr J. Bryan for the defendant.

The case, in respect to which decision was reserved on the bearing on a previous date, as reported in the “Gazette,” was one of a type which has given considerable trouble from time to time. On the Hauraki Plains some areas are liable to dual rating, firstly by the Crown for drainage purposes, and secondly by the Hauraki Plains County Council for general purposes. In some instaneps the councils of the district, prior to the constitution of the Hauraki Plains County Council, have no;t pressed for payment pf such rates, with the result that such ratepayers erroneously believed that when the Hauraki Plains County Council demanded Jtliese rates from them last year they were not really liable to pay them. His Worship’s decision, based on the verbatim report appearing hereunder, proves that the Council’s position is legally unassailable, and that payment of the rates can certainly be enforced. The position is most unfortunate from the point of view of both parties, inasmuch as the settlers concerned have to pay dual l rates; on .the other handy if payment could not be enforced, the Council would now-a-days stand to lose about £lOOO per annum in ’revenue. The case was purely a test one, in order to get a decision which would apply to all other such cases. In giving his decision His Worship said : "This is an action to recover the sum of £4 12s 8d for rates. Of this amount the sum pf £3 5s 10d is for general rates, 18s 6d for Hospital and Charitable Aid Rate, and 8s 4d for interest. “The lands in question are Crown Lands described as part 2 Block VIII, Piako-Waitakaruru Settlement, and the defendant drew these sections in a ballot in 1915. and holds under lease from the Commissioner of Crown Lands. The question for determination by this Court is whether the defendant is liable to pay general rates to the County Council in view af the special legislation enacted by the Hauraki Plains Act, 1908, and the several amendments thereof. “It is admitted : (1) That the plaintiff Council is the proper local authority to proceed in this action if the defendant is in fact liable for general rates. (2) That th,e demand for rates and all other formalities and requirements of the Rating Act, 1908, and its Amendments,, have been complied with. (3) That the defendant’s lands, which are tlie lands in question in this case, are within the area described in the Schedule to the Hauraki Plains Amendment Act, 1912, and that they are not within the ar,ea described in the Schedule to

the Hauraki Plains Act,, 1908. “As the whole question in issue will depend upon the construction, of the Statute, it is, I think, necessary to review the legislation on the subject. “The Hauraki Plains Act, 1908 (Section 2), sets apart certain Crown lands, which are described and defined in the schedule thereto, for the purposes of that Act. The Act empowers the Minister of Lands to construct and carry on such works- as he thinks fit for the drainage, reclamation, and rpading of the said land, or otherwise rendering the same fit for settlement. Section 4 (since repealed) provides the method for financing such works, and empowers the Minister of Finance to issue and apply for the purposes of the Act such sum or sums as he thinks fit, not exceeding in the whole the sum of eighty thousand pounds, out of the moneys authorised by Part II of the Local Bodies’ Loans Act, 1908„ to be borrowed for the purpose of granting loans to local bodies. By Section 5 all moneys s.o issued from the Public Account, together with compound interest thereon, are to be debited to an account to be called ‘The Hauraki Plains Settlement Account,’ and all revenues received from, the said land, whether by the Receiver of Land Revenue under the Land Act, 1908', or by any other person under the provisions of the Act itself, are to be paid into the Public Account and • credited to the Hauraki Plains Settlement Account. until the moneys so issued,, together with interest thereon, have been repaid. The Crown, having thus undertaken the development of the said lands the Act then proceeds (Section 6) to suspend the operation of Sections 145 to .151 (inclusive) of the Land Act, 1908, relating to the payments of thirds and fourths for the construction and maintenance of roads and bridges, so far as these particular concerned, and also suspends the operation of Section 319 of tfhe same Act, relating to the payment of flax and timber royalties ; and provides (Section 8) that the Minister of Lands may grant leases or licenses for the cutting and removal of flax. Section 9 provides for the acquisition of adjacent areas of land for the more effective carrying out of ’the drainage or other works authorised bj r the Act, and any lands sb taken or purchased are deemed to be set apart for the purposes of the Act in the same manner as if included in the schedule thereto. Section 10 provides for an annual report on the administration of .the Act.

“ The Hauraki Plains Amendment Act, 1911, by Section 2, increases the amount which is authorised to be applied by Section 4 of the principal Act, to one hundred and twenty thousand pounds. Section 3 states that in order to provide funds for tlie maintenance of the drainage works carried out under the authority of the principal Act, and for the

expenses of the general administration of that Act, so far as the same Relate to the maintenance of the works, the Minister of Lands may from time to time make and levy a rate sufficient for those purposes. Section 4 provides, that the rate shall be made and levied on the unimproved value of all land subject to the operations of the principal Act, whether the same is rateable within the meaning of the Rating Act, 1908, or not, and the section goes on tp provide the manner of levying the rate and the . classification of the lands - benefited by the works. “The Hauraki Plains Amendment Act, 1912, by Section 2 increases the amount which is authorised to be applied by Section 4 of the principal Act to one hundred and forty-five thousand pounds,' and repeals Section 2 of the Amendment Act of 1911. Section 3, sub-section 1, provides : “Fpr the purposes pf the rate to be made and levied in-pursuance < f Section 4 of the Hauraki Plains Amendment Act, 1911, the land subject to the operations of the principal Act shall bei deemed to be the land described in the schedule hereto, whether such land is Crown land or not, and shall also include all land hereafter acquired by the Governor in pursuance of Section 9 of the principal Act, and sucn other land as .the Governor from time tp time by Order-in-Council declares to be so subject to the operations of the said Acti. “It is to be noticed that this schedule embraces a larger area than that described in the schedule >'o the principal Act, .and that .a plan is stated (for the first tune) to be lodged in the head office of the Department jf Lands and Survey, Wellington. The section does not repeal the schedule to the principal Act, nor does it purport to substitute this schedule therefor. Moreover, the schedule to the principal Act is expressed by Section 2 of that Act to be the land set apart for the purposes of that Act, whereas the schedule to the 1912 Amendment Act is expressed to be ‘For the purposes of the rate .to be levied . . . the land subject to the operations of ihe principal Act shall be the land described in the sched-/ ule hereto.’ It i s also .to be noticed that Sub-sectiop 1 of Section 3 above set out, uses the words ‘whether such land is Crown land or not.’ Obviously, if it were not Crown land it could not be made subject to the operations of the principal Act unless it had been acquired under Section 9 bf 'that Act, and if it had been so acquired it would be Crown land for the purposes of that Act. The sub-section must therefore contemplate the creation of a new rating area ‘for the purposes of. the rate to be made and levied.’

Section 4, sub-section 1 (since repealed), is instructive because it is the first time that provision is made for exemption from any general rate made and levied by any county council, The Sub-section is as follows: (1) So dong as a rate is levied by the Minister of Lands under the authority of the Hauraki Plains Amendment Act, 1911, until Parliament otherwise directs, the lands Hable to that rate, as described in the schedule to the principal Act, shall not be liable to be rated in respect of any general rate made and levied by the C.ouncil of any county within which any part of such lands is situate. “It is tp be noticed that the section refers specially to the ‘lands, liable to that rate as described in the schedule to the principal Act, and does not refer io the lands described in the schedule to this Act. Applying the ■ ordinary rules of construction, it appear that the Legislature is, for its purposes, keeping alive the .two schedules, and, by expressing different purposes for each, prohibiting any . implied repeal or substitution. •Section 4, sub-section' 2, provides that the-said lands (i.e. the iandszmentioned in "sub-section 1) shalUneverthel.ess be liable to be rated in respect of Hospital" and Charitable Aid rates; and Sub-section 3 provides that notwithstanding exemption from general rates, every owner and occupier of the said lands shall be deemed to be a ratepayer of the County within which l.is lands are situate, and his name shall be entered on the roll.

The Hauraki Plains Amendment Act, 1913 (section 2), again increases the amount .authorised by the last amending Act tp one hundred and seventy thousand pounds. Section 3 (since repealed) repeals Sub-section 1 of Section 4 of the Amendment Act of 1912, and reads as ifollows : 3 (1) Section 4 of the Hauraki Plains Amendment Act, 1912“, is hereby amended by repealing sub- - section one, and substituting the following sub-section therefor: “(1) Unless and until Parliament otherwise directs, lands liable to he rated pursuant- to Section four of the Hauraki Plains Amendment Act, 1911, whether actually so rated or not, shall not be liable to be rated in respect of any general rate made and levied by the Council of any county within which any part of such lands is situate. “(2) This section shall be deemed

,to have been in operation from the eighteenth day of May, nineteen ’ hundred and ten, The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies’ Empowering Act, 1917 (Section 108), repeals Section 3 of the Hauraki Pl'ains Amendment Act, 1914', and in lieu thereof substitutes the following: 108. Unless and until Parliament otherwise * directs, ,the lands described in the schedule to ’the Hauraki Plains Act, 1908, and all lands that may” heretofore have been or may hereafter be taken or purchased under the provisions of Section nine of that Act shall be exempt from any general rate made and: levied by the Council of any County within which any part of such' lands is situated. “It is upon the construction of this last-mentioned section that the Court has to decide the question of defendant’s liability. In every Amending Act in which this exemption appears, namely, in the Acts of 1912 and 1914'.

and in the section of the 1917 Act now under consideration, the exemption is limited to ‘the lands described in the schedule to the Hauraki Plains Act, 1908.’

" “It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the presence of the schedule in the 1912 Amendment impliedly repealed or that it was impliedly in substitution for the schedule to .the Act of *l9OB, but all the logical inferences are against that. As already pointed out a different purpose is assigned in the sections oil the Acts of 1908 and 1912, respectively, for the existence of the respective schedules. It was suggested at the hearing that the purpose of the dis'tinction was to restrict exemption to the original Crown tenants. The Court’ is, however, not concerned with the purpose (if any) for the restriction, but only with the point as to whether .there is, bn a. proper construction of the section, such a restriction. The draughtsman of Section 108 of the Act of, 1917, and Parliament in ratifying it, would have all the previous legislation before them, and the .Section specifically exempts ‘the lands described in the Schedule to the Hauraki Plains Act 1908,’ and, by implication, no other.

“It is not competent for any Court to assume that. Parliament has made a mistake, there being a strong presumption that Parliament does not make mistakes (Halsbury, vol. 27; p. 146). Income Tax Special Purpos; es Commissioners v. Pemsel (1891) A.C. 531, 549. Fiscal and rating enactments must be expressed in clear unambiguous language (Halsbury, vol. 27, p. 150), arid the section under consideration is. I think, clear and unambiguous. It was stated by Jervis, C. J-, in Abley v. Dale( 11 C. 8., 378, 391 : ‘lf the terms of a Statute are plain and unambiguous,, the Court is bound to construe them in the ordinary sense,, even though it lead to an absurdity or manifest injustice?

“The language of a statute imposing a tax must receive a strict construction : there can be no equitable construction admissible in a taxing statute (Halsbury, vol. 27, p. 180). I,t is true that the section under consideration is not found in a taxing statute, but rather in an exempting statute, bu,t we are to remember tha't this Amendment refers back to the original statute and its various amendments •

•‘ln my opinion, the-maxim ‘expressio unius exclusio alterlus’ applies, and the section having specifically referred to the one schedule, must be deemed .to intend to exclude the other. This is not a private Statute in the strict sense of the term, and the maxim, therefore, applies without limitation.

“The effect is, therefore, that the defendant’s lands, hot being within the area exempted by Section 108 of the Act of 1917, are liable to pay the general rate made and levied by the plaintiff Council.

“Judgment is given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, £4 12s Bd, with costs of Court, £1 5s and solicitor’s fee £1 65.”