THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, APRIL 296, 1897.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10429, 29 April 1897, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, APRIL 296, 1897.

Thb suit recently brought by the City Council for the recovery of city rates on the Government Life Assurance Department's buildings in Queen-street, raises a question of the greatest importance to the community. That case was determined by the Stipendiary Magistrate against the Council, but as the decision was made on technical points, it does not affect the principle at issue, and need not be discussed here. But the question to be considered is, is it for the public good that Government and other property of a particular kind should be exempted from the payment of local rates? That they are so exempted by existing law is of course to be admitted, but legal sanction, as we know, does not always necessarily imply either equity or expediency. In the Hating Act of 1894, inter alia exemption from local rating attaches to lands vested in Her Majesty, to churches, public schools, colleges, asylums, hospitals, charitable institutions, etc. That is to say Government buildings, for public, educational, and chartiable purposes, and also churches, cannot be called upon to pay rates to the local government of the district in which they are. Now, in order to get the correct bearing of this principle of exemption we should consider what are the objects intended to be served by freeing such property from local rating. And in considering the case of Government buildings used for public purposes, there is bo advantage in our case in raising any theory such as that the Queen, who ie assumed to be the owner of these buildings, ought not to be eubject to taxation by her subjects. As a practical fact these buildingt belong to the State, that is the people; they are provided by the people's money to do the people's work. If, therefore, they have to pay rates or taxes, the meaning is that so much more of the people's money will require to be paid for local purposes of improvement. For simplification let us take a specific property, sav the Post Office in Bhortlahd-street. Its working is maintained at a coat, say, of £2000 a year by the public of New Zealand, and if it were Made liable to rating, it would be called on to pay, say, £20 additional to the local government of the city. It would cost, therefore, the people of New Zealand £2020 in the year to carry it on, instead of £2000. If that sum of £20 went, say, in tribute to England, or France, or Russia, or another external power, there might be a principle involved which would require to be considered. But when it Roes to do the people's work, say in lighting or drainage, of even asphalting the roadway in front of the Post Office itself, anyone can see that there is no moral, or social, or political, or any other principle involved, it is simply a question of the people's money going to do the people's work. If that sum of £20 is not paid by the public treasury through the post office it must be made up by the public in some other way in order to do the work which the public requires. There is, therefore, not the slightest gain to the public from withholding that rate; for the work to be done must be done, and nobody but the public will pay for it. It may be laid, however, that the two publics are slightly different; in the one case it is the public of New Zealand, in the other a portion of that publio, to wit the public of Auckland. But granting that there is that diflerence, ie there justice in the action of the public of New Zealand compelling the public of Auckland to expend that money from its private purse to do a Work from Which the public of New Zealand benefits 1 The Post Office as a property benefits by the curbing and channelling and lighting of the streets, the repairing of the roadway, the providing of an efficient water supply and firemen to protect the buildings and contents of the Post office; and is it fair that the public of New Zealend should impose all this burthen on the public of Auckland, and take all the benefit without contributing a farthing? If we look at the matter the light of the interests of the publio as being one and indivisible, there is an absurdity in supposing that any benefit arises from hot the rate; «hd if We look at the tW<J public* fcj divisible and distinct there is a positive wrong inflicted in leaving the citizens of Auckland to bear the whole costof improving theinterests and value of the Post Office property Without the State paying its fair share. The same applies to every public institution in the city,«nd while there is riot theslightestbenellt to the public interest accruing from withholding • the rate, there is a distinct injustice in exacting the ratepayers of Aucklfthd to beafthe whole burthen of improving those pro- **** ? he 'toft*, «'* public sehOdi, the lunatic) asyluhi, the gaol, are each and all improved in Value and efficiency by the works carried on by civw. of Ideal • government. Why should not eacb be regarded as entitled iM the fundi deVdt«d to it* maintenance to contribute its fair share to the costs;lncurred itt those improvemenUj as much as it » entitled from those fundi tettut up a wing or a chimney (There is certainly no PJfi 8 ■«". to claiming exemption; tod there is M certainly palpable in■s%&s *Wrkini;ite div. of thb bureheuj ttm ; whik{evef; source its fundi are provided, and in it* throwing on the: local residents the work of proWHh r egad to the churches the case is so glaringly

wrong (bat no discussion is needed. ' The exemption at these from local rating is not only conferring benefits on private sections of the' community at the expense of others but it i 3 a notorious violation of the principle of no State aid to religion which is recognised by all ss a fundi. mental constitutional principle in ott public polity. This concession to the churches is resting only on a sentimental basis, and is distinctly dishonest and its acceptance by the churcliei $ only another illustration of thefactthat the religious conscience is capable of • condoning an immoral act, presumed to be done in the cause of Giod, which men. of the world would scout as shameful trickery. Each church (hat takes th« exemption of rating takes also all. tin' • benefits conferred on it in its approaches' and surroundings at the expense of other people's pockets -improvement! wliicl) these ecclesiastical organisation!' ought to honestly pay for as they p*y for t.heir hymn books. ■ ■ ', ] ?''■ But returning to the Government in-! stitutions, while we find that no benefit conies to Hiiybody from their being ex/ euipt from the necessity of contribut-' ing to Hie local cost of their owu imI pi'ovement. These exemptions are as embarrassing to local Uoverumeat u they are unfair. A3 stated by a correspondent in another column, they 1 amount in the City of Auckland toaloa of £2500 a-year. In other words,the ratepayers are tined to the extent o{ this amount to make good the sum inquired in keeping these properties sup. plied witli all the advantages &nd conveniences they derive from lo&i administration. And now tint the principle of re-purchase of property bj the Government is not only recognised ■ but expanding every year, the prospect presented is that of the local Govern- ■ inents all over the country being ground down more and more under the heel of the central Government. If these Stateowned buildings and properties aredis- : persed everywhere among the private properties of citizens and district rate, payers, they should have to pay for their own improvements just as citizens and other ratepayers do. State Treasurer* who want to keep down their budgets. ■ no matter who may have to bear thi penalty, and the officials connected with these various public institution! who want to make the outgo as HttU as possible, are all naturally advocatei of these exemptions. But practically the exemptions do no good in the end, they are vicious in principle and abso- ■ lutely wrongful to looal ratepayer!! W and if the friends of local government only saw their interests in the right 1 light they would not cease to agitate, and to denounce the mischievous un- || fairness of all these exemptions, until they were abolished.