RATING FOR DRAINAGE

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5478, 23 September 1929, Page 3

RATING FOR DRAINAGE

I O QUESTION OF LIMITS. COURT TO MAKE DECISION. Objections to the Hauraki United Drainage Board’s rates were received at the monthly meeting on Friday, and included was a threat to test the matter at law. The board struck its rates and will await developments. The first objection was above the .signatures of the following Horahia / district settlers : Messrs F. H. Speedy, HE. K. Kneebone, J. McKerchar, J. S. MeWatters, F. A. Kneebone, E. Flavell, C. Kneebone, A. Wheeler, H. Cook, G. Parry, W. McDuff, R. Rowlings, G. Beck, H. A. McCollum, J. Spence, J. u H. Sloane, F. Dalton, T. Wheeler, C. W. Schultz, and G. I. Irwin. the text of the objection was as follows : “Take notice that we object to the proposed proportions of the general rate it is intended on September 20' next to be made and levied by your board, the proceeds derivable from such a rate exceeding the proceeds derivable from the maximum rate on a uniform scale on all the rateable property in the Hauraki United drainage district.” Attached to this communication was a letter from a firm of Hamilton soliI citors addressed to Mr T. Wheeler, b Ngatea, acknowledging receipt of a ■ cheque for £2 2s, and stating : “The question submitted has unfortunately never been before the Supreme Court, and it is therefore difficult to advise definitely. The sections of the Land Drainage Act and of the Rating Act in question have, however, been before the Magistrate’s Court and are the subject of a judgment by Mr Salmon, S.M., delivered at Morrinsville. This judgment is, of course, not authoritajT tive, and is not binding on the Magistrate’s Court, much less on the Supreme Court. “The powers of rating by drainage boards is by section 31 of the Land Drainage Act, 1908, limited to six If farthings in the pound on the rateable value. By section 2 of the Land Drainage Act ‘rateable value’ has the same meaning as in the Rating Act, 1908. In the Rating Act, 1908, section 2, Jteub-section (c) ‘Rateable value’ : ‘ In respect of property within any district where the system of rating property on its unimproved value is in force means the sumi at which the unimproved value of such property is assessed as appearing by the valuation roll made under the last-mentioned Act.? “From your instructions we understand that the system of rating in the Hauraki United drainage district is now, and always has been, on the unimproved value. It therefore follows that the limitation in section 31 of the if Land Drainage Act in the case of this F board has reference to the unimproved i. value. •1 “The Rating Act, 1908, has been re- ■ 'pealed by the Rating Act, 1925, but as the material sections have been reenacted the position is not affected. Section .92 of the Rating Act, 1925, •and sub-section (b), which is a reenactment of section 86 of the Rating Act, 1908, and sub-section (b), provides as follows :— “ Tn all cases where by any Act or provincial ordinance a limit of rating power is imposed upon any local authority, and in all cases of special and annually recurring rates or of any rates the amount of which is fixed for any definite period of time, the follow- * ing provisions shall apply: (B) Where the aforesaid limit of rating power has reference to the capital or the annual value and the system of rating on the unimproved value is in force every rate made and levied by any lAocal authority on the unimproved •value shall be so adjusted as to equal /as nearly as may be but not to exceed in its producing capacity the aforesaid limit of rating power on the capital or annual value as the case may be.’ “Now, assuming our instructions to be correct, the limit of rating power in the case of this board has reference to the unimproved value, and consequently the above-mentioned provisions of section 90 of the Rating Act, v 1925, have no application. Neither have the remaining provisions of the section any application. “In the case of the Waitoa Drainage Board v. Lowry, mentioned above, the learned magistrate held that the Waitoa Drainage Board was entitled to rate up to six farthings in the £ on. . the capital value, notwithstanding a|hat the system of rating was on the . pnimproved value. The grounds of this decision were that when the Land Drainage Act, 1908, was passed, the Waitoa Drainage Board was rating on the capital value, and it was only in 1918 that the system .was changed to the unimproved value owing to the constitution of the Hauraki Plains County Council, which rated on that system. With this decision we are unable to agree. Even if correct, however, .this decision does not affect the 'Bposition of the Hauraki United Drainage Board, which has always rated on xthe unimproved value. We are, therefore, of opinion, that the Hauraki United Drainage Board is limited in its power of rating to a rate which, will produce a sum equal to the profeds derivable from a uniform rate six farthings in the pound on all teable property in the district on the basis of the unimproved value. “There are two methods by which the attempt to levy a larger rate can be t combated : By an application to the Supreme Court for an injunction to restrain the collection of the rate ; and by defending an action for rates in the Magistrate’s Court. In the second case, however, the amount defended should exceed £2O, otherwise there would be no right of appeal should an adverse decision be given by the magistrate.” The second objection, from Mr W. Willy, was as follows :— W“Take notice that I object to the rate as advertised to be made and levied, as the proportions are such make the proceeds derivable from such rate greater than the amount allowed by law. Further, take notice that I object to the mode of

levying the special rate over the Hauraki Special Rating Area, as the proportions are such as to give preferential treatment to certain ratepayers, inasmuch as about 450 acres are to be exempted from any rate. This is forbidden by the Local Bodies Loans Act, 1926, section 78 (1) and (12) and section 21 (5) and (6).”

Continuing, Mr Willy asked if the board would take the ratepayers into its confidence and let them know by what means it became empowered to exercise powers which, he was assured, were ultra vires. If the board had legal opinions to the effect that it was empowered to do as it had advertised its intention to do, he asked if the ratepayers could be given a little information on the subject. It was agreed to consider the two objectidns together. The chairman said it was suggested that the board was exceeding its powers, and a request was made for the ratepayers to be taken into the board’s confidence.

Mr Williams suggested meeting the ratepayers and explaining the whole position.

Mr Heappey objected to this, as it would mean a further delay to the striking of the rates.

Mr F. L. Hamilton said that the ratepayers suggested fighting the board. If there was to be an action the board should withhold its information.

The chairman said that the board was merely collecting money to pay for the additional drainage facilities it had provided. Mr Miller suggested making a test case of the matter, and he moved in that direction.

Mr F. L. Hamilton seconded. The text of the motion finally adopted was : “That the board, having considered the objections by Mr, Willy and others to the proportions of rates as advertised, and having full confidence in the opinion obtained from its legal advisers, decide that it cannot make any alteration to the proportions objected to.” Concerning the second objection raised by Mr Willy, Mr Hicks said that the 450 acres mentioned undoubtedly referred to the land classified as D.

In this connection section 124 of the Local Bodies Loans Act, 1926, provided as follows : “No objection shall be allowed in any Court to any rate purporting to have been made or levied by a local authority to secure the repayment of moneys borrowed under this Act or any enactment repealed by this Act or by the Local Bodies Loans Act, 1913 ; and no defence shall be heard by any Court on any claim for rates made or levied for such purpose if such defence alleges any irregularity in the proceedings for the pledging, making, or levying of such rates ; nor shall any action or other proceedings be allowed by any Court for questioning the validity of such rate, or for restraining the recovery thereof.”

Mr Heappey said that the D land settlers had not had any say whatever* in the raising of the special loans and the land could not be saddled with liability at any time. This was borne out by a statement by a Cabinet Minister to the Waikato River Board recently. Mr Willy as clasifier for the United Board had been the means of increasing the general rate on some lands by eleven times, yet he was now objecting to an increase of sd in the £.

On the motion of the chairman, seconded by Mr Murray, it was decided to advise Mr Willy that in the opinion of the board section 124 of the Local Bodies Loans Act, 1926, covered the position.

On the chairman’s motion the rates as advertised were made and levied.