Harbour Rates

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XI, Issue 241, 15 October 1921, Page 5

Harbour Rates

LOCAL BODIES CONFER. MR. JULL EXPLAINS PROPOSALS OPPOSITION SQUARELY MET. A meeting of delegates representing the various local bodies interested in the provisions of the proposed Napier Harbour Board Enabling Bill, convened by the Napier Harbour Board, was held in the Hastings Municipal Chambers yesterday afternoon, lor the purpose of hearing the chairman of the Harbour Board’s (Mr. Jull) explanation of the board’s proposals, with the object of coming to a general understanding regarding the position.

Mr. A, E. Jull presided, and the following gentlemen were present: Messrs T. E. Crosse (H.B. County Council), J. B. Andrew’ (Mayor of Napier), V. J. McGrath, Bryant, Hobson (Napier), Goodger (M aipukurau), R. H. Medde and W. G. Bryce (Waipawa), E, C. Clarkson and W. H. Complin (Havelock north), W. Hart (Mayor of Hastings), D. E. Davis and W. J. White (Hastings). A. C. Russell (Waipukurau County), Charles Pattison (Patangata County), C. Ellison, J. T. Blake, .and J. A. Miller (Napier Harbour Board), and John Holden.

An apology was received for the absence of Mr. T. Mason Chambers.

Messrs. J. P. Kenny (secretary Napier Harbour Board). A. B, Campbell (Solicitor for the Harbour Board), and P. Purser (Hastings Town Clerk) were also present. THE BOARD’S IDEA.

Mr. Jull thanked those present for attending the meeting to hear the board’s views on the question of the collection of the Harbour Board s rates and he wished to say at the outset that he regretted that, any friction had ensued between the board and the other local authorities, because they were all represented by the same ratepayers. The idea the board had in mind was to overcome and prevent any further overlapping and duplication in the effort of, collecting the jajtes. The Harbour Board had certain authority to collect rates, and they were strictly limited to two loans, which these rating powers included. Other loans had been raised, with, however, express prohibition against the levying of rates. The board for the past 12 or 14 years had consistently reduced the ratos from time to time, with the result that instead of £23,000 or £24.000, there was only a rate of £ll,OOO last year, so that the board had been assisting in reducing the rates through the wnole district. The board’s rating district was the largest rating area in the country. The duplicated w’ork, in the valuation, correction, and adjustment of tho rates, and such work, had cost the board up to £375 for a year, and he pointed out. that the cost of posting, stationery, printing, etc., has gone up very much higher than was the case at the time of the old roll. CRY FOR ECONOMY.

The cry on every side now was for economy in the administration of public bodies, and it was the duty of every public body to secure the reduction of expenditure in every way that would not impair the work, and, in adopting the Harbour Board’s proposal, they would be saving £ll,OOO or £12,000 a year to the district. He claimed, therefore, that the scheme should receive the support of everyone, as it would represent a difference in the rate of interest of 1 per cent, on £120.000 per annum. The local authorities had the machinery for collecting their own rates, and there should be nd difficulty in collecting their own rates and the board’s diminishing rates. This matter of local bodies collecting harbour rates was no innovation, as for many years the Timaru Councils had collected their harbour rates, and no objection had been raised by the local bodies, .men the board first introduced the Bill, the Hawke’s Bay County Council had met the board, who had dealt w’ith the objections raisefl by them as best they could, and the board thought that the other local bodies would do the same. He accepted responsibility, and he extended his regrets if there was any feeling of resentment because they had not been consulted. THE FOUR OBJECTIONS.

From tho newspaper reports of the last conference, held in Hastings, he gathered that there were four causes of objection. (1) That the board was seeking to impose on the local bodies responsibility for the harbour rates, whether they were collected or not. (2) That the board were asking for the payment of the rates at two periods, when the local bodies had not themselves received them. (2) That the commission given foi the collection was inadequate.

(4) That, in any case, the proposal was bad in principle and should not be gone on with anyhow. , Regarding the first three objections, while the board considered that, as a result of their proposals, they would be able to make concessions in ratio to the ratepayers, there was no reason why these concessions should not be made through the local bodies to whom the ratepayers paid their rates. It was not a question of the board receiving advantages. In a large number of cases the harbour rates were very small per head, and the collection of the rates by the local bodies would be a great convenience to the ratepayers. COLLECTION DIFFICULTIES. Regarding the clause providing for the payment of the rates by local bodies before they had been received, he confessed that, according to the draft of the Bill, that would be the effect if no modification were made, and he felt that the objection was valid. While the board’s financial period ended on December 31. that of the local bodies ended on March 31, and he thought that the board should make the periods for payment, for the first year at any rate, end at such times as would fit in with the convenience of the local authorities, say, that instead of March the payment be made in December, or even of March the following year. He knew that members of local bodies, and especially rural bodies, had difficulty in collecting their rates, conditions which he hoped would not last long, and he thought the board should make arrangements to meet the position whereby the rates in ar re ar could be deferred, and whereby the board would bear their share of the uncollected rates. Regarding the contention that the board’s proposal was wrong in principle, he could not agree with that. The collection of the Harbour Board rates, fixed by Statute, and the collection of the hospital and charitable aid levies were totally different, and there was no analogy between them. He knew the irritation caused by these claims being collected at short notice, and how embarrassing it was. If there was irritation in the mind of any representative of the local bodies present he desired that they remove it. and that they look at the matter from the point of view of effecting economies "’hen opportunity offered, to show their sincerity. Tliis» was the first time in this district that the opportunity was offered to meet the general clamour to reduce the cost of administration in local government. DON’T BE FUNNY. In reply to Mr. Hart. Mr. Jull said that he was seeking to modify the terms of the Bill so as to meet the objections raised Mr. W. J. White: Do you propose to make the local bodies the board’s agents for the collection of the harbour rates, without having any responsibility as to the payment of rates that are

uncollectable? I want to make the position plain. We are here to oppose the compulsory clause in the Bill, and unless you make it clear that the local authorities are to be only agents in tho collection of the harbour rates, without responsibility for rates that cannot bo collected, at a fixed remuneration. then we will oppose the Bill. Mr. Jull: Do I understand that you want to collect the rates and only pay thorn if you wish? (Laughter.) Mr. White: I’m putting it as plainly as I can. I can’t put it an” plainer. Don’t try to bo funny. MEETING ALL OBJECTIONS. Mr. .lull repeated that the Bill would be amended to extend the periods to suit the objections. They would be prepared to allow uncollected rates at the end of the period to be

deferred, and the board would bear their share of the uncollectable rates. The board would forward a statement of the rates to be collected, which would be included in the demand for the local bodies’ own rates, and if they had to sue for their own rates they would sue for the harbour rates at the same time, so preventing duplication. The board would be prepared to hand over to the local bodies the whole of the saving effected (estimated at 10 per cent.), as it would all amount to the same thing. Mr. A. C. Russell considered that it was Mr. J nil’s duty to have conferred with the local bodies in the first instance. when a workable scheme would have been arrived at.

Mr. Jull replied that if he had been in the district he would have invited himself to the last conference and explained tlse position to them. Mr, Russell thought that there would be no economy, because the £lOOO said to be saved would be only shifted to the local bodies. The administration of the board would show £lOOO less, but that £lOOO would be spread oyer the local bodies. He thought it would be better to drop the Bill this session, as there would not be a hope of getting it through, and to call a meeting of the local bodies next yeatj when they would assist. JUSTICE RECOGNISED

Mr. Goodger congratulated Mr. Jull on recognising the justice of the objections. because it was absolutely wrong to obtain Statutory authority to place compulsion on local bodies without their consent. In reply to Mr. Goodger, Mr. Jull said that the terms would be that in the March period the local bodies would only have to pay the board the amount collected at the end of March. Mr Goodger said it would be no use in their agreeing to amendments at the present meeting. The proposed amendments should be put in writing and placed before the bodies concerned for their consideration. COUNTY SYMPATHETIC.

Mr T. E. Crosse quite sympathised with the Harbour Board’s proposal. The j Hawke’s Bay County Council had un- ; animously decided that the Bill was in the .direction of economy, and he felt that even those who were against it, were only opposing because they desired economy. There were 11,000 ratepayers and a large proportion of the payments were for very small amounts, which, in postage and cost of postal notes, would take Gd to pay, or 2 j per J cent, if the rates averaged, say £l. If i these small rates had to be re-demanded [ the whole rate would be absorbed, in cases where they were Is. To the in- ! dividual ratepayer it was one of the 1 best propositions put for a long time. ! There had been an enormous increase lin the number of small ratepayers, from ’ Is lOd up, and the centralisation of the collections would be a great saving. The • county was supporting the Bill because (they would only be held responsible for ithe rates collected, and because it was 1 purely in the interests of the ratepayers. Mr Hart: Yes. You are supporting it because you will not be held responsible for the rates uncollected. Mr Crosse: Yes, and because it is in the interests of the ratepayers. Mr Jull: The Hawke’s Bay County represents 40 per cent of the ratepayers. RESTRICTED RATING POWERS. Mr Patterson looked on the compulsary clause, without consulting the local < bodies, as very arbitrary. His council was decidedly opposed to it. He, howwas not empowered to vote on the question. Mr Jull: The local bodies will have ample opportunity of voicing their opinions on the subject. lam not asking the meeting to pledge their councils to any course, but I would like to know the personal opinion of those present as to whether the modifications proposed ! will have the effect of removing the objections. There is no possibility of the enlargement of tho board’s rating pow- • ers, as these have- been fixed by statute. Mr Patterson said that they all believed that the Inner Harbour would be j the success that they hoped it would . be, but if it happened that it was not a success. What then?

Mr Jull said that there was no pos- ■ sibility of their not being able to meet the interest, but if some future Harbour Board wanted to rate, then they would have to place the matter before the ratei payers. | In further reply, Mr Jull said that the board had not called on all their pow- ; ers to collect rates provided by the statute, but that was most unlikely. ONLY OPINIONS WANTED. Mr J. B. Andrew said that he could only listen to what was said, as he had no authority to commit his council,' and if he only expressed his personal views, they would carry "no weight. Mr Jull explained that he was not asking them to commit the bodies they represented, but it was desirable that ‘ the opinion of those present should be expressed as to whether the modificaI tions proposed are reasonable to meet the objections made. Mr R. H. Wedde considered that there would be a considerable saving in the collections under the scheme, as cost to local bodies would not be very much. If they were not held responsible for uncollectable rates,’then he was in favour of the proposal, and it was better to put Bill now than nxet year. Mr E. C. Clarkson said the Havelock North rate was only £SO odd, but the other local bodies would be concerned to a much greater extent. He was not committing his Town Board, but he thought there should be no objection to the Bill, with the modifications explained by Mr Jull. It would be a great benefit to the ratepayers. At the same time, the bodies should get time to consider the matter ,and the bodies who had difficulty in collecting their rates should receive every consideration. UNCOMPROMISING HOSTILITY. Mr Bryant said he opposed tho Bill in its original form, but with the modifications, he would support it, personally. It was a step in the right direction, provided the bodies were safeguarded regarding uncollectable rates.

Mr C. Ellison explained that the Harbour Board did depute the chairman and himself to discuss the matter with local bodies. They conferred with Napier Council, but they met with such uncompormising hostility, on the ground that the bill was wron in principle, that they did not go any further. The board had suggested that their representatives should come out to the recent conference in Hastings, but they had been told they were not wanted. Mr Goodger was about to propose n motion, requiring the board to submit the proposed amendments to tho local bodies, but Mr Jull asked to be allowed to make a statement, which ho believed would meet the situation.

NO TIME FOR DILLY DALLYING. •MR JULL’S PROPOSAL. Mr Jull said the board was doingsomething which, in their opinion, was the proper thing to do. ’flic present meeting could see what modifications were necessary to meet the objections. It was not, however, proposed to wait until every local body dilly dallied with suggestions, down to crossing tho T’s and dotting the i’s. The amendments, as proposed, would be drafted and submitted to the local Bills Committee, copies being also sent to the various local bodies and if the modifications did not meet their approval he had asked the local Bills Committee to notify him as to when they would meet and he would advise the local bodies. The modifications, as set out, would be transmitted to the gentleman in charge of the Bill in Parliament and, if the local bodies desired further amendments, then they need only got into touch with the Harbour Board, who will be glad to give every consideration, as there was a committee appointed to deal with modifications. He wanted them to get rid of the impression that the board was imposing something on them, in order to relieve themselves. He would tell Mr Russell, however, that he was not prepared to withdraw the Bill. The rates to be collected .in March, 1922, would not be payable until March, 1923, which should give ample time. Mr Hart: Will we get copies of the Bill before they are sent to Wellington. Mr Jull: The local bodies will be sent copies of the Bill at tho same time as tho draft is sent to the Local Bills Committee. There will be plentv of time for consideration before the Bill comes before the committee. A hearty vote of thanks was accorded; Mr Jull. on the motion of Messrs Hart and' Goodger, and the meeting rose.