RURAL RATES

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 34, 3 November 1934, Page 8

RURAL RATES

Provision For Rebate of * 12} Per Cent. HIGHWAYS FUND GRANTS 1 A rebate of 12i per cent, on rural rates is provided for in an amendment added to the Finance Bill (No. 3) in the House of Representatives yesterday. County councils - and road boards will receive subsidies equal to 12J per cent, of amount of rates levied on property exclusively or principally for agricultural, horticultural or, pastoral purposes. The subsidy is to be granted out of the Main Highways revenue fund. • County councils will be required to supply a statement containing the necessary information on .which payments can be calculated, and each county will have to grant a refund if rates have been paid, or a rebate if they have not been paid, to each ratepayer involved, equal to 12} per cent, of his rates for this year. Each county must also supply information relating to rateable pro-, perty in its district that is not used exclusively or principally for agricultural, horticultural or pastoral purposes, the name of the owners, its rateable value, and the total amount of rates made and levied thereon for the current financial year. These statements must be made to the Government as.soon as possible. The amendment seeks to avert the concession of rate rebates to owners of suburban properties which are included in county jating areas, as in the case of Heathcote and Waimairi, in Canterbury, and Hutt and Makara, in Wellington. Limitation of Rebate. • When the amendment was introduced Mr. F. LangsFone (Lab., Waimarino) asked if the rebate would be given to wealthy city men who occupied residential property in county areas, such as in Waimairi county, on the outskirts of Christchurch. Mr. W. Nash (Lab., Hutt) asked whether the concession was to be general, in spite of large differences of income. Were men Who drew from £SOOO to £BOOO a year to participate? Such men might be entitled to a rebate of anything up to £125 on their rates. This would not be equitable, nor would it help the genuinely distressed farmer. Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Ind., Eden) agreed with this. He said that if the Government gave help to farmers who did not need it, then it must be able to give less to those who were in need. The Minister of Finance, ,Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, explained that there was a provision limiting the rebate to land used “exclusively or principally for agricultural, horticultural or pastoral purposes.” “Is this election.year?” asked Mr. Langstone. The Prime Minister, Tit. Hon. G. W. Forbes :T can answer that now. It is not election year. “Well,” said Mr. Langstone, “in 1031 we had similar legislation and there was an election that year. There was no rebate in the following years. Now we are going to take £250,000 from the highways fund for this purpose. Mr. W. J. Polson (Govt., Stratford) : Are you objecting to it? Mr. Langstone: No. but I am objecting to the way-it is~to be distributed. The Hon. A. D. McLeod (Govt., Wairarapa) urged that some relief should be given to "Farmers in boroughs such as in the Upper Hutt. That was the class that wanted most assistance because of the heavy drainage, sewage, water and other rates on farm properties in boroughs. “Whole Thing Illogical.” “The whole thing is illogical,” said the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage. “I want the farmer to get some assistance. This is not the way to give it, but I am not going to oppose it. The man who does not need the assistance will get it, and the men who may need it most might not get it, as has been pointed out by Mr. McLeod. The Government ridiculed our suggestion of a guaranteed price to the farmer for his produce, but every argument that was used against us in that connection can be used against this proposal.” Mr. Stallworthy said many of those living in urban areas were the most hardly pressed. It was a pity a fairer incidence of the rebate could not be devised. He did not know whether the Minister of Finance was determined to put through the clause as it stood. Mr. Coates: We want to give the assistance in the most practicable way to those in need. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Govt., Patea) suggested that men on the urban farm land lists should also be entitled to the concession, while Mr. A. Harris (Govt., Waitemata) considered the clause should apply to land used principally for agricultural, pastoral or horticultural purposes, wherever that land was situated. “Who is going to determine whether land is principally used for agricultural purposes?” asked Mr. W. Nash. He claimed there should be some positive provision in the Bill to enable that point to be determined. He also said it was grossly unfair again to transfer money obtained for road-building purposes. The money required to give effect to the proposal should come from the Consolidated Fund. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont) said that in cases where rates were not paid the counties would pocket the amount of the rebate as they did on a previous occasion. Mr. Coates: I think this clause rectifies that. If the rates are not paid the counties do not get anything. After further discussion the com-

mittee' reported progress. As the House was about to rise Mr. Coates said some of the three new clauses proposed to the Bill would probably be dropped to enable the Bill to be passed quickly on 'Monday evening.