RENTS OF MINING AREAS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4465, 11 September 1922, Page 3

RENTS OF MINING AREAS

DISCUSSED BY COUNTY COUNCIL. At the meeting of the Ohinemuri County Council on Thursday last an application was received from Frank C. Sloan, of Waitek.auri, for mining rents collected from his porperty, of which he holds the freehold, tp be pa’d over to him. The following correspondence on the matter was laid before the Council : The Deputy Mining Registrar wrote as follows: “Referring tp your inquiry dated 12th inst re the above I have in reply to state that quite recently the warden was asked his opinion on the matter as an application had been made for rent on the various lands under Mining Lease, and later held under M.D.L.O. and freehold. The following is an extract from .the warden’s reply, dated September 5, 1921: ‘I have looked carefully into the matter, and I am of opinion that there is nothing in the Land Act or its amendments whicn can be construed to reserve such rents to the Crown once freehold has been acquired in accordance with the Act. I have also ascertained that, it has been the practice at Paeroa for some years past t where ’ there are numerous freeholds of this sort, to apportion the rents from such claims amongst the owners of such freeholds. The matter has evidently, therefore, been the subject of a previous ruling, with which T agree..’” A letter from the County to the Minister of Mines : “I have the honour by direction of the Council to bring under your notice the position in connection with the granting by the Lands Department of freehold titles to lands within the goldfields area The rent for mining privileges on land within that area is paid to the local body in whose district the property is situated, and this continues to be the case even though the land is leased under .the provision of the Land or Mining Acts for pastoral or agricultural purposes. A considerable area within this county has been let under the Hauraki Pastoral Lease system, and this title gives to the holder the right of acquiring the freehold. This right has been exercised in several instances lately, and application has been made by the owners of freehold to the Receiver of Goldfields Revenue for the rent received on account of the mining privileges granted by the warden over the said land, and which rent has hitherto been a part of the revenue of the county. The warden has expressed the opinion that there is nothing in the Land Act to reserve such rents to the Crown once the freehold has been granted, and I am instructed to point out the very serious effect the granting of these freeholds will have upon the revenue of afll local bodies whose territory includes any extent of goldfields area if the warden’s opinion is correct. The intention of all the legislation bearing upon this matter is clearly that the rent of mining privileges should go to the local body that has to provide reading and other facilities' on the goldfields, and it was no doubt owing to an oversight that provision was not made on the lines laid down in section 272 of the Land Act, 1908, to the effect that before a freehold title over such lands was granted by the Land Board the matter should be referred to the warden for his opinion as to whether the land is required for mining purposes. The fact that under a freehold title the land has a greater rating value than under H.P.L. tenure does not counter-balance the loss to the local body of) the rent of the mining privileges, as the land within goldfields areas is, as a rule, not firstclass land, so that even with the permanent title its rating value is small, and the falling Off in revenue of the local body is consequently great. At the present time, when there is such a large decrease in the amount being received from gold duty, this is a very -serious matter to counties having considerable goldfields areas, and the council respectfully asks you to be good enough to give the matter your consideration with a view to having the law so altered that the rents received from mining privileges cannot under any circumstances be diverted from the purpose for which they were originally intended. —R. W. Evans, county clerk.” Tn reply to this the Under secretary wrote as follow's: “Reverting to your letter dated November 21 last on the above matter, and in continuation of my interim reply thereto of 29th indem I have now to advise that the question as to whether the owner of an occupation license .who has acquired the freehold under sections 28 and 29 of the above Act is entitled to be paid all rents from mining claims existing on the lands at the date of the licensee’s 'intention to purchase the fee simple has been referred to the Crown Law Office, and I am now informed that notwithstanding the decision of the warden that the owners are so entitled, the Crown Law Office is definitely of the opinion that she purchaser of the freehold is not entitled to the rents for minerals, and that the owner’s claim should not be admitted. “Rents should be held by the Crown in order to enable the owner to obtain a Supreme Court ruling by originating summons, if he so desires. The Crown should .facilitate such an application in order to get an authoritative ruling on the point, but the rents paid should be held, and not paid over to local bodies meantime. “The opinion of the Crown Law Office was brought under the notice of the warden,, and I am now in receipt. of a communication from him stating that he is in agreement that the point should be the subject of an authoritative ruling, and he has therefore drawn the attention of Mr Porritt (solicitor for the applicant owner of the freehold) .to the opinion of the Crown Law Office, and the necessity for obtaining such a ruling. In the meantime he has instructed the Receivers of Gold Revenue to hold moneys received in respect of rents from these mining leases.” Or. Corbett thought that if the Act says the rents should be paid to the holder of the land the council should

The clerk said that with reference to the letter from the mining registrar at Waihi he had made inquiry from the local mining registrar and found that it was not the practice, nor had it been, for the rents to be paid over to the holders of Hauraki pastoral leases. Cr. Morgan considered that t e rents should go to the local bodies. These rents were in lieu of rates. He considered that the council should contest the matter. The mineral rights had nothing to do with the pastoral rights and he thought it only right for the council to protect its revenue. The council had to make the roads in the goldfields area, and if it were not for these rents they would not be able to do anything. He thought that the matter should be brought under the notice of the member for the district. Cr. Corbett said that they should settle the matter and know where they stood. If the council lost the rents it would have a very far-reach-ing effect, and woulld be a very serious matter to the county. After some informal discussion it was decided to write to the Thames and Coromandel counties and find out what these bodies thought of the matter.