STRONGLY OPPOSED

Gisborne Times, 13 October 1932, Page 3

STRONGLY OPPOSED

ECONOM Y COMM I SSION’S PROPOSAL.

STAMP AND LAND OFFICE CENTRALISATION.

GISBORNE LAW SOCIETY’S PROTEST.

Strong opposition to the proposed centralisation of stamp and land registration offices, as suggested by the National Economy Commission, is expressed by the Gisborne Law Society and this stand was supported by the Borough Council at Tuesday evening's meeting. Tho ) following statement by the Law Society was placed before the meeting:—

: :The Gisborne District Law Society has carefully considered the recommendation of the National Economy Commission to abolish all stamp and land transfer offices outside the four main cities of New Zealand. The Commission has based its recommendation solely on ■ "the question of cost to the country and has estimated that the adoption oi the action proposed would result in an annual saving of JtGOOO.

“The Society is entirely opposed to the proposed centralisation of these oflices and considers that insufficient consideration has been given by the Commission to matters which, in the opinion of the society, far outweigh the comparatively small estimated amount of annual saving. From a national point of view the proposed change is unsound and uneconomic in that: —

“J. The initial expenditure occasioned by the transfer of office staffs and records, and the adjustments ■which (would be required in the mam offices would offset any anticipated saving for some years. . “2. There would, as the outcome of such a change, be an inevitable loss of income in the stamp duties department, owing to the lack of local knowledge of the officers in the centralised office. Jn the assessment and collection, in particular of gift duties and amusement taxation local knowledge of the department s officers is an important factor and the society is convinced that grave losses to the revenue under these beads would result from the abolition of local offices. “y. The great amount of correspondence which would necessarily arise in dealing with (a) assessment and collection of stamp duties including gift duties, and (bi assessment and collection of death duties, would occasion increased staffs in the centralised offices with consequential increased cost to the country. “-1. Over centralisation in departments at State is uudcsirub'e and not in the best in I crests of the people as a whole. Ihe cost to and the convenience of the public, particularly i.n. isolated districts, cannot be disregarded and it is on these grounds particularly that the Society desires to register an emphatic objection to the Commission's, proposals.

■•That the public would be inconveionced and that additional expense would be placed upon those having transactions dealt with by the above mentioned departments, must be obvious, but so that the position may be appreciated, a short statement of some of the matters in which the public would be affected is given below.

“1. The public in the district from which the departments arc withdrawn will be called upon to pay agency charges in respect oi' every search of land and of stamping and registering dealings with lamJ.

“2. Searches of the companies register, .which at present are Irequonldy made by laymen, would require to be made by remunerated agents. ,

‘o. Generally in til!, transactions relating to land, including (a) savveys. ( b.) investigation of title's, (e) stamping and registering dealings, (d) incorporation of companies and all registrations affecting companies, the parties interested would have 1° bear an increased cost either directly by agency charges being incurred, or indirectly because of the necessity in some eases of protracted correspondence with the officials of the departments being dealt with. “(■!.) In many cases' settlements of land transactions would require to be made in the registry office, involving payment's of exchange, loss of interest and further agency charges.

“(.“>) Local bodies' requiring searches of properties which arc now made by their own clerks, without any expense whatever to the ratepayers, would require to employ paid agents for that purpose. “(<j) Generally the proposed centralisation would cause great inconvenience, delay and expense in the transaction of business matters affected by die .above departments. “The above- reasons in opposition to the proposed charge have been made general, but they apply with even greater force to the Gisborne district, by reason of its isolation. Assuming a, transfer of the departments under notice to Auckland, it is desirable to point out Unit' the average time witjiiu which, a reply is received' to correspondence to or from that city is. ju favorable circumstances, six days. From this if will be plain that the change, if carried into effect, will greatly militate against the eUieient' and expeditious transaction of business relating to dealings with land and company ‘''“The" * society lias endeavoured to consider the Commission's report on this subiect from all points or view, and is convinced that the proposals are not in The interests of the country as a whole and certainly not m the best itorests of the people of this district'.” ] “A very strong ease has been made out”, stated the deputy-Mayor (Cr. H. E. • Maude,) for it undoubtedly appears a retrograde step and inimical to‘ Ui 0 interests of the people' of the district”.—On the speaker’s diction, seconded by Cr. J. W. 11. IJiolines, it was decided to support Ike protest and ask the co-operation of Messrs. J>. \V, Coleman and lv. S- Williams, Al.P.’s., in opposing the suggested step.