A RATING QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 275, 11 April 1911, Page 4

A RATING QUESTION.

In the Clifton county there is a very large area of native land, and the dilliculty of recovering rates from natives has to a great extent crippled the finances of the County Couneil. Practically the whole of the highly-valued land on the sea side of the Main North road from the Waitara borough boundary to the Onaero stream, a distance of about six miles, and averaging about three-quarters of a mile in width, is not contributing rates. And in addition to this particular area, there is about the same quantity of land, although perhaps less valuable, scattered throughout the county. Now, much of this land is occupied by pakehas, from whom rates could in most casos be recovered without any serious difficulty. The Council has admittedly used every efl'ort to recover rates from the native owners, but has not until just lately directed any attention to the European occupiers of these lands. In the Waihi riding, where the position is most acute, these lands are almost wholly occupied by pakehas, and, indeed, the natives themselves are in occupation of but a very small portion. To those unfamiliar with the actual state of atfairs, it is rather remarkable that the Council should have confined its energies to fruitless attempts to get at the native owners whilst it consistently ignored the fact that there were many occupiers both able and willing to pay the rates. Some members of the Council, past and present, have been for years in uninterrupted occupancy of some of these fine blocks of land. The chairman's remark at the meeting before last, that he was "of opinion that unless the Council could recover from the native owner it would be profitless to place the occupier on the roll," is perhaps the weakest argument he could possibly use, for it is because the Council cannot recover from the owner that makes it necessary to turn to the occupier. Various reasons have been given from time to time to show that the occupiers should not be called on, and a recent one was that they had no regular lease. To this we reply that if the leases were registered no need would arise, for the provision for occupancy as a simple entry on the roll as lessees would suffice. The legislature evidently had these irregular leases in view when it made provision for occupiers (as distinct from owners or lessees) being placed on the valuation roll. Another reason was that if the occupiers refused to pay the rates the Council could not distrain on the land, as it did not belong to the occupiers, nor on the stock, as it would be extremely difficult to prove ownership. But this is a mere subterfuge, as a judgment summons i.< all that would be needful, and the Stipendiary Magistrate would see that they were paid up. Many of' these occupiers, it is only fair to state, have declared their will ngness to pay rates but consider it is the duty of the Couneil to take such steps as are necessary so that all are placed on the same footin};. The claim of the Couneil that everything possible has been done in tlii?. matter is not borne out, when we find that an occupier actually waited at the Council's office and expressed his desire to pay the rates. The answer given was Hint as he was not on the roll the rates could not be accepted. The Council's evident duty was then to have obtained the consent of the Valuer-General to amend the roll by placing the name thereoil as occupier. But unfortunately this would have created an awkward precedent, for once having admitted the principle of collecting rates from occupiers, the position of other occupiers, especially if they happened to be county councillors, would have become, to say the least, extremely delicate. Tt can be proved (hat some of these lands have been in. the uninterrupted occupancy of the same persons for terms up to ten, twelve or fifteen rears, whilst it is reported that, some have made arrangements for a. further term of years. These people should be made to pay rates just as other people less fortunately situated arc forced to do. AVe would ask cnuntv councillors to read this clause in the I'atiug Amendment Act. IfilO, and, in the light of it. explain'to ratepayers how it is they have up to now been so unmindful of their duty in the matter: Tn the case of native land, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the principal Act. if there is no occupier thereof within the meaning of the Act than the owner, then the person who is in actual occupation thereof shall be deemed to be the occupier for all t.ho purposes of the principal , Act, and of this Act whether he occupies the land by virtue of a tenancy for anv fixed period, or at will, or | otherwise howsoever, and whether his

occupation thereof is lawful or unlawful. The Council has instructed an officer to obtain particulars of "occupied" Maori sections. This is all that has been done. The Council's duty is plain, and its performance should, not be postponed any longer.