The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, May 27, 1909. HARBOUR BOARD LEASES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 458, 27 May 1909, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, May 27, 1909. HARBOUR BOARD LEASES.

PERpHAPSthe most important business that the Foxton Harbour Board has at present under consideration is the surveying and cutting up into’ quarter acie sections o£ the land at the Heads, for settlement purposes, and in order to give prospective tenants security of tenure and to provide itself with revenue. At the present time quite a number of people from all parts of the district have erected cottages on the Board’s endownment at the seaside resort on a monthly tenure. They have been prepared to build at the risk of getting a month’s notice to quit. At a previous meeting of the Board Mr Nash gave notice to move the following motion:— That lessees of sections on the foreshore at Wharangi having buildings erected thereon, be granted a lease for a term of seven years at a rental of 20s per quarter acre, and lessees of vacant sections be notified that the rent of such sections will now be increased t® 20s per quarter acre per annum, and that unless buildings are erected by the various owners within 12 months from date, then such leases shall cease to exist, and will be submitted to public tender. In the event ol buildings being erected within terms of this resolution, then lessees shall be granted a lease lor a term of six years to fall in wi'.h leases referred to in the first portion of this resolution. In all cases a lessee will only be allowed to hold two quarter-acre sections for each

building eroded or at present . erected. The motion was not moved at last meeting until the Board members inspected the property which they did and in order to obtain a legal opinion in respect to same. The point in question is whether the Board has power to make arrangements for lease with individuals without the necessity of putting the leases up to public auction. It would appear at first sight from clause 9 of the local Act that they could. “The Board may lease any lands vested in it at such rents and profits, and upon such terms and conditions as the Board shall determine.” The enactment that the Board can determine the amount of rent seems inconsistent with the necessity of determining the rent by auction. However, by section 2, the Harbours’ Act 1908, is incorporated with the Foxtou Harbour Board Act. This is necessarily the case with all the local Harbour Board Acts. The authority to pass such acts is given by the Harbours’ Act, and one of the conditions imposed by the Harbours’ Act is that the general provisions of the Harbours’ Act must be incorporated with the Bocal Act. Section 121 of the Harbours’ Act is therefore implied in each local Act unless it can be shown that the provision of the local Act is inconsistent with it in which case it would be deemed to override it. It provides that all lands must be leased bn public auction or tender. Section 9 of the local Act is not necessarily inconsistent with this because the reference tp ‘‘rents and profits” taken in conjunction with “terms and conditions” must be construed to mean that the Board can fix the upset rentals together with the provisions (terms and conditions) of the leases and also fix those conditions of bidding and tender which need not afterwards be incorporated in the leases. The Harbours’ Act provides the machinery or method by which , tenants are to be obtained, but leaves it to the local Act to give the Board authority to settle the terms of the leases themselves ; apart from the question of who the lessees are. Of course it is open to argument that the granting by the Bocal Act of power to the Board to determine the rent amounts in effect to negativing the provisions of the Harbours’ Act, requiring this to be determined by auction or tender, but unless it can be clearly shown that there really was a difference be--1 tween the two acts in this respect so that special act would be deemed to override the provision of the general act, they would have to be read together in the way above indicated. As to whether the Board would be acting legally in simply allowing the existing tenants to continue 1 with it in the way they were with the Marine Department, although it might not be called in question if they did, still it would be acting outside its duties and powers to do so. When the Board comes into existence there are certain tenants in possession of its lands, holding ; them from the previous owner, the Marine Department, It is 1 the Board’s duly to notify them of its ownership. If after their 1 original tenancy from the Depart- . ment has expired the Board allows ' them to remain on the same terms : as the previous landlord fixed, it 1 amounts to exactly the same thing 1 as if the Board made a fresh lease or agreement for tenancy with them, and this it has no power to do. Of course the Board would be bound by the Marine Department’s lease to the same extent as the Department itself was bound 1 (vide Sec. 119, Harbours’ Act), but that at the most would be only one month according to the Department’s information to the , Board. It seems on the plain con-, struction of the statutes that though the Board is not bound to lease at all unless it likes, still if it does do so it must be by public auction or tender, and that whether it wishes to offer new sections for lease or, continue with the lease of already in the possession of tenants after their tenancy has expired. It is Wurth noting that the Board . could, by Ordei-iu-Couucil, get itself declared a ‘ ‘ leasing authority” under the ■“Public Bodies’ Beases Act, 1908,’'' and it would then have power under that Act to grant leases by private contract for any term up to two years. However, this would not help Mr Nash’s object to any extent because he wants to secure leases for the present tenants up to seven years.

On the point whether section 9 of our Act excludes section 121 (re leasing by auction) of the Harbours’ Act, a practically conclusive proof that it does not, is furnished by section 120 of the Harbours’ Act. This section was exactly the same Words as section 9 of our Act —“ the Board may let any lands vested in it, or any part thereof at such rents and upon such terms and conditions as the Board determines.” If we say section 9 of our Act excludes or negatives section 121 of the Harbour’s Act, then we must say that section 120 of the Harbours’ Act excludes or negatives section 121 of the same Act, which is a reductio ad absurdum and seems to us to conclusively settle any doubt on the point. There is no reason for saying that the Board is bound to terminate the existing leases by exercising the power which the Marine Department had to do so — its duty is not to renew them when they expire by efflusion of time. Possibly they have all expired now. If the Board accepted rent that would be a tacit renewal and illegal. If the Board does not deal legally with its reserves the Government has power to take them

away from it, vide section 124. So far as is ascertainable the Marine Department granted no leases for 1909, in which case there will be none in existence now, and the Board cannot legally refrain from putting all the sections up to auction at once.