Rates on State Properties

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28888, 7 May 1959, Page 14

Rates on State Properties

The contention of the Mayor of Upper Hutt (Mr R. H. E. Slacke) that full rates should be paid on Government properties is sound. Obviously some exceptions must be made, for alpine parks, waste land, and so on; but in general the State, like any other landowner, should pay for the services it receives from any local community. In many instances, such as rental houses, the State does pay full rates; in many others it does not. If it did, local authorities would not have to lean so heavily on the State for assistance in other ways. Wellington, though an extreme case, illustrates the point well. Because the State has so many properties in the capital the City Council is deprived of revenue it could reasonably expect in return for all the amenities it provides. In exchange it gets some special concessions, as, for example, a large contribution towards its

waterworks. Whether the Government makes or loses money by this arrangement is immaterial. Because special grants are special grants they are inevitably made in a political atmosphere and weaken the independence of the local authority. That is true every time a local authority anywhere has to go to the Government for help—help that it would probably not need if the State paid its full routine share of local expenditure. Mr Slacke’s proposal is not a new one. It was argued many years ago, restated by the 1944 Parliamentary Committee on Local Government, and developed by the 1958 Royal Commission on Local Authority Finance. It has apparently everything to commend it, save that it runs counter to the passion of departmental officials and politicians for retaining all the powers of patronage that they can.