WATER CHARGES

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 147, 19 December 1933, Page 13

WATER CHARGES

ON IRRIGATED LANDS

DIFFICULTIES ARISE

Difficulties, have arisen concerning the provision in the Finance Bill seeking to give the Crown authority to constitute the amounts due for water charges on irrigated lands in Central Otago a. prior'charge of mortgages on land and stock. This is a. now principle in law and representatives of tho stock and station agents concerned have been in Wellington conferring with the Minister of Finance (tho Kt. Hon. J. G. Coates). • '■ Tho situation was traversed by tho Minister in tho House of Bcprcscntatives this morning when moving the second reading of the Finance Bill. Ho said that prior to tho Government irrigation scheme being instituted the land was worth only a few pence per acre, but although the-State enterprise had converted it into a beautiful garden, the Crown was the last to be paid. Although the Bill made provision for the priority of charges to be retrospective, an amendment Would be .introduced making them apply only to the future. The position today was that the stock and station agents, were getting free grazing at the expense of the State. • ■ ' ■ The position had been investigated during the recess by a Mortgagors' Belief Commission, and, in accordance with its recommendation, it was hoped to get interest at the rate of 1 per cent, oil tho State's expenditure. The difficulty was to find a way of ensuring that finance would be available to tho farmers from stock and station agents under the conditions laid down in the Bill. He had been conferring with tho stock and station agents, and ho hoped to reach an amicable agreement with them, but the position was difficult, a3 a new principle in law was being established. Tho Government's duty was to protect the State's interests. ' Mr. A.^ J. Stallworthy (Independent, Eden): Are the stock and station agents agreed in their opposition. The Minister: Yes, I think I can say that. ■'..''■' . , The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. M. ,T. Savage) ' said that while the Crown's right to priority of payment might, be defensible, surely the settlers concerned had a right to be heard either'by the House or by a Committee. Ho contended that this was not the time nor the way to deal with a proposal of such magnitude.