Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 68

Native Duties

page 10

Native Duties.

I venture the opinion that very few are aware that Native duties were originally imposed for the support and maintenance of the Native Land Courts. This Native duty is a special first charge of £ 10 per annum on the consideration money, and of £10 per centum per annum on the yearly rental of Native lands.

"The Native Land Act, 1865" which called those Courts into existence, is also responsible for the imposition of this tax. It hardly seems creditable that a tax which so severely affects the weaker section of Her Majesty's subjects should have thus existed for twenty-four years. For such a lengthened period, however, this act of injustice has been permitted to disgrace the Statute Book. I am glad to see that Mr Fitzherbert has tabled a motion for the repeal of this tax, and I trust he will be ably supported.

On this question Sir Robert "Stout when Premier did not have the courage of his opinions. That courage led him to the fierce denunciation of the iniquity of the tax, but failed him when it came to a question of tabling a motion for its repeal.

"Oh it is excellent
To have a giant's strength but it is tyrannical
To use it like a giant."

To give some idea of the amount that Native duty contributes to the revenue, I will refer to the return asked for by you last session for the period from 1880 to 1887, and from which we learn that it amounted to £121,407 5s., being an average for the eight years, in round numbers, of £15,550 per annum. The Court fees for the same period totalled £19,182 7s. 10d. the surplus over expenditure must have been at least £46,000, and we can fairly assume that the Government has more than recouped its expenses for maintenance of the Court since 1865.

The Native duty on leases was payable yearly up to 1882, since when, the duty is calculated on the capitalised value of the whole term and made payable in advance. This was heaping injustice on injustice. The having to pay these large sums in advance necessarily lessened the amount of the rental. It is also a loss to the Treasury as I will now proceed to show. Taking a lease for twenty-one years at a rental for the first term of seven years at £50 per annum, £100 per annum for the second term of seven years, and £150 per annum for the last term of seven years; the Native duty if collected annually would produce £210, capitalised it produces £11.3 18s., shewing a loss of £96 2s. If the rental is £150 per annum for the first term, £184 for the second term, and £220 for the remaining term the duty, collected annually, would amount to £387 16s., capitalised to £226 15s. 6d., or a loss of £161 0s. 6d. If the calculation is made on a rental of £100 a year for seven years the loss will be £12 2s 6d. The reason assigned for the departure from annual collection to capitalisation, seems to have been the difficulty of collection. A simple remedy would be to make the duty payable at a Money Order Post Office, page 11 to inflict graduated fines for length of time unpaid, and declaring the lease void if the duty is twelve months in arrear. No Treasurer, however, could be found with the courage to propose such a measure, affecting as it would the "superior race." My treatment of this portion of my subject may seem irrevalent to the general issue, it, however, bears on the question of the depreciation of rental, which is more affected by the one mode of collection than it is by the other.