DEFERRED PAYMENT MONEYS.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume IX, Issue 1666, 4 July 1887, Page 2

DEFERRED PAYMENT MONEYS.

A question which has leen threshed •» out on former occasions was raised once more at the County Council E meeting on Friday, as freshly as though it had never been debated, foueht out and decided three or four years ago. The facts are briefly as X follows : — Certain holders of suburban sections within the town district of n Manna some few years ago objected to the then Commissioner of Crown „ Lands, Capt. Wray, to the proposed expenditure on the Manaia road, by c the Road Board, of deferred payment thirds derived from their suburban '• sections. The matter was enquired into ; Captain Wray decided that the Road Board could not claim the right to apportion the money, as under the provisions of the Town Districts Act such thirds were payable to the County Council. The Road Board, which had , steadily opposed the proposed ex- ' penditure of deferred payment moneys on by-streets in the township, expres- . sed itself quite satisfied with the i decision of the tLen Commissioner of Crown Lands ; inasmuch as the County Courcil had no power to il expend auy deferred payment money except on county roads. There the c matter rested ; the money has since .f. f been spent on county roads, and every L . one supposed the whole affair was finally settled. But in March last a

letter was received by the County Council from ths Taranaki Land Board, stating that there was a sum of £34 of deferred payment money derived from deferred payment suburban land in Manaia, and available for expenditure on roads abutting on certain town sections. These so-called roads were, in fact, streets, and the result was that the particular deferred paymeut selectors in the township thought tb it they were at last to have another innings and would gain the point they bad previously failed to carry. When the County Council considered the matter, apparently much of what had previously passed had been quite forgotten. Councillors did not attempt to uphold their rights under the Land Act, but simply asked the Land Board how they could spend deferred payment money except on county roads. Now, the Land Act of 1887 and that of 1880 are equally clear on the matter, the clause in the later Act having been copied from the clause in the earlier one. Omitting surplusage, it says :—: — "One-third of the price of any block of land disposed of on deferred payments shall be handed over to the County Council or Road Board of the district within which such land is situated to he expended in the construction of roads within or to open up the block for the benefit of selectors. . . . The plans of proposed roads shall in all cases receive the sanction of tlie Land Board of the district." This clause seems to have been strained to confer power 3on the Land Board which it certainly does not convey. The County Council or the Road Board is by the Act called upon to fix what roads it is most necessary to open up in each block for the benefit of selectors. The Land Board is entitled to see that the plans are reasonable, and that the interests of selectors in each block, not on each road, have been considered. The Land Board or the Commissioner of Crown Lands has, in this particular instance, been made to appear ridiculous, for it has called upon the County Council to spend deferred payment money illegally. But it has also attempted to usurp powers wnich belong to the local body, and for which the land board has neither the special knowledge nor apparently any particular aptitude It is no part of their duty to localise expenditure, but to " sanction plans of proposed roads," and so long as any plans of proposed roads sent in are reasonab]e, probably any local body which chose to test a c"se could compel the land board to sanction such plans. While on this subject we may refer to another point which was lately raised by the land board. The clause above cited says the money shall be spent "in the construction of roads." The land board has, so we have been unofficially informed, decided that construction of roads means the c mstruction of new roads only, and would refuse to sanction plans of a proposed reconstruction of old roads, or a widening, or reforming and metalling of main roads, or even a proposed reconstruction of bridges on main roads out of deferred payment moneys. It is within our knowledge that such an interpretation of clause 127 has never been conceded by members of local bodies in this district. The point has never been raised, simply because so i~, Jn «o mjciu \>ere so many urgent new works required to open up back blocks, neither road board nor county council desired to raise it. But those clays are passing away, old forms of local government have been abolished, nnd under the new Counties Act road boards seem to us fated to merge iv county councils. So soon as small ridings, each with entirely distinct and separate rating powers are formed, one of the first aud most vital questions with some of these ridings will be, " How can we possibly within one or two ridings raise enough money to reconstruct certain main road bridges ?" The deferred payment moneys will assuredly be asked for ; and the land board's interpretation of its powers of refusal of sanction will be tested. AYe submit that it is a pity to allow threatened friction to arise between joint authorities in such matters. The land board would be doing a graceful act now, when such burning questions are iv abeyance, if it took the opinion of counsel as to the extent of the powers and duties conferred on it by this clause, 127. They might ask (1) whether the formation and gravelling of 12 feet or 15 feet out of a 66 feet roadway (without any attempt at real macadamising with assorted broken metal of various sizes) can be upheld in law as a complete construction of a road ; (2) whether a reconstruction of part of a 66 teet roadway or of a bridge would be covered by the word " construction " ; (3) whether if " plaup of proposed roads " sent up for sanction were in themselves good and reasonable and "of benefit to selectors in, or to open up, any block," the Land Board could legally refuse its sanction in order to insist upon a different localisation of the money which the Land Board might consider of greater benefit to particular sele^ors on certain roads, or not. It has been our experience in New Zealand that each governing body as a rule puts a most liberal interpretation on the Act from which it derives its powers. Tlie Taranaki Land Board is probably not exempt from this little family failing, and a small two guineas' worth of outside legal opinion from Wellington or Christchurch might prove a wholesome corrective of any unconscious bias, and might at the same time determine the limits of powers of joint authorities, who seem likely otherwise to dispute the extent of each other's dependence or independence of control.