A RATING SCANDAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 319, 5 June 1911, Page 4

A RATING SCANDAL.

This journal was taken to task rather severely by the chairman and other members of the Clifton County Council on Friday for its criticism in connection with the non-payment of rates by Euro pean "squatters" of land belonging to Maoris. We arc very pleased that the Council discussed the matter, but we would have been better pleased had the chairman first read our cirticism before attempting to reply to it. He admitted he had not done so, but nevertheless he went the length of saying: "It is difficult for me to believe that a re spectable paper like the "Daily News" would make an unjustifiable attack, which was practically a slander, on mem bers of a body like the Clifton County Council." Had he read the criticism, Mr. Foreman could not have made a statement so absolutely unjustified. Our criticism was not unfair, and our arguments were not answered by the chairman or the other councillors who spoke. What they did say only went to prove our contentions, as we will proceed to show. We contended that the finances of the Council have been crippled to a great extent by the non-collecting of rates on the large area of Maori land in the district; that much of this land has been and is occupied by pakehas, from whom rates could in most cases have been recovered without any serious difficulty; that instead of seeking rates from these occupiers the Council have confined their energies to "getting at" the Maori owner. This is the real position, and there is no getting away from it. Both the chairman and Mr. McKenzie made a strong point that it was impossible to rate these lands until April I of last year, when the new Bating Amendment Act came into force. They quite overlooked or ignored the fact that under the old Act the Council could have placed on the roll the names of all occupiers whose tenancy was for a period of more than six months. We know of the case of one occupier with a lease for a term of years who distinctly covenanted that he would pay the rates. Why were these occupiers not put on the roll? Again, under the old Act, the Council had the power to place consenting ratepayers on the roll. We know of cases that wo could name where the rates were profferred, but the Council actually refused to take the money. Cr. McKcnzie on Friday made the admission himself that he had always been willing to pay rates on the Maori land he occupicu, and that if the owner of the land had received a demand for rates he would have paid them. Why did the Council not accept these rates? Surely it was not because the Council had a superfluity of cash, because their finances were and have been since in a straitened condition. It is idle for the Council to say, as they did, that ■everything possible had been done to collect the rates. As a matter of fact, they simply refused to exorcise the powers they possessed, and no excuse or explanation or statement can get away from this fact nor from the fact that the pakeha ratepayer has had to find all the money for the upkeep of the roads, excepting that obtained from the toll gate, while the '•'squatter" has had the free use of them. In regard to the new Act, what measures did the Council adopt to take advantage of the provisions? None, until forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, as it were. Months had passed when our Tikorangi correspondent drew pointed attention to the matter, and only then was a move made. Had the councillors possessed a clearer conception of the duty they owed to ratepayers, they would have given the clause dealing with Maori land rating immedinte publicity and taken prompt action, and not left it to a correspondent

of a newspaper to bring it under their attention and public opinion to force their hand. The position now is that a list containing names of occupiers of native land is to be forwarded to the Valuer-General, with a vitew to 'the' names being placed on the valuation roll, and for the first time the lands will be subject to rating. Had the Coun cil done their duty in the past, this would have been unnecessary (except in the cases of an isolated few) there would have been no necessity for a toll-gate, the finances would ( have been in ft healthy state, and ratepayers would have had an easier time all round.