TIMBER ROYALTIES.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume L, Issue 16496, 31 July 1924, Page 9

TIMBER ROYALTIES.

LOCAL BODIES’ CLAIMS

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day

The question of timber royalties for the maintenance of country roads was the subject of a deputation to a .member of fho 'Government this morning. Some 34 councils were represented and 30 members of Parliament, were associated with the deputation. The deputation was received bv Sir. F. Bell, in the absence of Mr. Massey. Other Ministers present were: Sir Heaton Rhodes and the Hon. A. J). McLeod.

The point of view of the local bodies was that ever since 1905, when the Act regarding royalties going to local bodies for road maintenance was passed, the local bodies considered they had a claim to royalties which many of them had been unable to get. The deputation desired that local bodies should be paid back royalties. It was also asked that an Advisory; Board should be set up, as provided for in the Forestry Act, 1921. In many portions of New Zealand where there was heavy timber country, the land was not as valuable as in other parts. Consequently when the timber was removed tlie local bodies could not collect a rate sufficient to maintain roads. Tf royalties were not forthcoming the local bodies would have to fall back on the Consolidated' Fund.

Sir. F. Bell, replying, said that- Cabinet bad not yet considered the report of the Timber Royalties Commission, and when doing so it. would be a great’ advantage to have before it the criticism of local bodies. The representations .of those bodies would have just as full consideration ns the report of the Commission. The question was a. difficult one, but speaking ns a. former Commissioner of State Forests, lie asked them to remember that, it was a matter for the Treasury entirely, because the revenue derived from State forests now passed into the Treasury. With regard to the revenue derived from forests by the legitimate operations of the Forestry Department, he said that the counties should have a portion of it. They must not regard it as a fact that the State forest policy was itself in effect depriving local authorities of revenue, except to a minor extent. The matter would lie considered, fully when Cabinet, came to deal with the question as to how the revenue derived from the "Department's operations was to lie disposed of.