LOOKING AHEAD

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 134, 8 June 1945, Page 6

LOOKING AHEAD

UNOFFICIAL RECORDS

STAMP OFFICIAL'S PRACTICE P.A. ~ AUCKLAND, June 7. The view that, he did not consider it fair that certain records he had kept without specific department instruction should be used as evidence before the Royal Commission on Licensing was expressed by Mr. L. G. Tuck, Assistant Commissioner of Stamp Duties at Auckland, during cross-examination by Mr. H. F. O'Leary, K.C., counsel for the National Council of the Licensed Trade of New Zealand, at a sitting of the Commission. Mr. Tuck formally produced his evidence last week, and the chairman of the Commission, Mr. Justice Smith, directed that publication should be withheld. After describing, in response to Mr. O'Leary's request, the procedure followed in his onice when a person presented a document for stamping, the witness agreed that he was not required by Statute to keep official records of the documents, apart from the date, the parties, and the consideration.

AUCKLAND, June 7

Mr. O'Leary: Apparently, of your oton volition, you overhauled documents that are brought in for stamping so that you might have information for years to come—information of use when : dealing with deceased estates?

Witness: Yes. I have found it pays handsomely. Mr. O'Leary: "Pays whom?— The Crown, the authority entitled to collect revenue. Mr. O'Leary: You have no statutory right to .do what you do?—I do not agree altogether. There is a general provision in the Death Duties Act which empowers me at any time to call for the production of documents and to extract what information I need. My practice is purely anticipating that authority. "DOOMSDAY BOOK." In answer to a suggestion by Mr. O'Leary that he had no right to extract information years . ahead • and | enter it into a "doomsday book," the j witness said: "I don't think anyone is in a position to restrain me, and I think it is fair to assist me in gathering tax duties." Mr. O'Leary: Do you think it fair to j use it at this Commission?—l did not think it was, and that is why I claimed privilege. Mr. fuck added that he had told counsel assisting the Commission, Mr J. D. Willis, that he did not consider the information should be brought before the Commission. Questioned by Mr. O'Leary as to whether the same procedure was being followed in other parts of the Dominion, the witness said he did not think so. While he was in punedin he had kept such records, but he did not know if his . successor nad continued them. There was no depart-; mental instruction in respect of the matter. It depended upon the frame of mind of the particular official. When Mr. O'Leary asked tht witness what other classes cf business, besides hotel businesses, were the subject of such records, Mr. Justice Smith ruled that he was not going to allow a general inquiry, and that counsel's questions woiild have to be confined to those coming within the province of the Commission. Mr. O'Leary had said the public would be very interested to know what was going on in this connection, and it might be a case for the introduction of special legislation. The witness stated that the collecting of the information would not take up much of the time of his staff. When he used this "stored up" information in the assessment ci death duties, he would .mention it to the valuer or the solicitor concerned, but not necessarily in every case. He had been collecting information since his arrival in Auckland seven years ago, although a few of the earlier records had gone astray. OBJECTION TO USE AS EVIDENCE. ;At this stage the witness repeated his submission that he did not think it .proper to use this material as evidence before the Commission. Mr. O'Leary: What then induced | you to prepare these four pages of | comment and,conclusions? You have gone outside your province as Stamps Commissioner. Witness: I ,was.called on, and told I would be subpoenaed. to give information before this Commission. 1 pointed out that there were no business records in my office, and that the only thing was a book kept as my personal record of hotel transactions Mr. Willis thought it would bt useful, and I told him that I would not produce it without a direction from the Commission. It was arranged that I should plead privilege. The witness added that the views expressed were comment on his statement and he considered them fair. He was not assisted in compiling either the statement or the record. The only assistance he had received was in the preparation of search notes, by the 1 chief clerk in the Justice Department. Wellington. This official had not seen the statement. CHAIRMAN'S INTERVENTION. Mr. Tuck said he could not outline what action he would take if anyone objected to having his documents examined as was done. The Commissioner of Stamp Duties knew of the practice. In reply to the chairman, the witness said the practice of keeping records of transactions had been universal for years. "I am well aware of that, and put the question in justice to you," said the chairman. "I have known of it through the Court for many years. The Commission takes the responsibility of your being called here." In further reply to the chairman. Mr. Tuck said there was no limit to the number of licences that might be issued under the Industrial Efficiency Act, but there was a fixed limit for liquor licences.