The Aurland Star. WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The News, Morning News and The Echo. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 18,1907. THE LAND VALUATION CLAUSE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 249, 18 October 1907, Page 4

The Aurland Star. WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The News, Morning News and The Echo.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 18,1907. THE LAND VALUATION CLAUSE.

War the cause tha* tacts assistance. For the wrong that needs resistance. Tor the future ta the distance, 'And the good that tee can do.

I lis was to be expected, a-good deal of parliamentary eloquence was expended I yesterday over the clause in the Land ! Laws Amendment Bill dealing with the valuation of estates resumed under the Lands for Settlement Act. Clause 66, as it appears in the published draft oj the bill, provides that compensation for land compulsorily taken over under the Act shall be granted on the basis of "the capital value of that land as assessed in the valuation roll in force at the time," unless the owner can prove that the value of the land has increased since the date of the last assessment. In addition to the value of the land thus ascertained, further compensation to the extent of 10 per cent up to £50,000, and 5 per cent beyond that limit) shall be paid to the owner. The object of such a provision is clear enough to anyone familiar with our system of taxation. Human nature being what it is, we can hardly be surprised to rind that landowners are in the -habit of fixing the unimproved value of their estates as low as possible for land tax valuation purposes. "Under the new clause, a counteracting tendency will be set up to induce the landowner to appraise his land at a higher value; while at the same time what has been well termed "the official bias of the Department's valuers in favour of nigh valuations" will be correspondingly checked. The general principle embodied in this clause seems to us so manifestly equitable that if it were not the duty of an Opposition to oppose, Mr. McNab would possibly have got this section of the bill through without much adverse comment.

But not only is there a small section of the House which still identifies itself with the "vested interests" of large landholders; many of the recognised organs of the Opposition throughout the country still think it their duty to champion the cause of the "great estates," and they have strenuously opposed this principle of valuation on the ground that it is unjust to the holders of large areas of land such as are likely to be acquired under the Lands for Settlement Act. The i Christchurch 'T?ress," for example, urges that "when it is borne in mind how land is -valued for land tax purposes, it is : simply monstrous that this valuation should be made the basis for fixing the price when the Government desires the land." Considering that the owner, and not the Government valuer, is naturally responsible for any unduly low assessment, we fail to see why it is "monstrous" to keep the landowner to his word. "It is a well-known principle," says the "Press," "in valuing for land tax purposes, that land should not be valued at the full market value at the time." But clause 66 allows for any proved increase in value since last assessment, and further adds a liberal percentage by way of compensation above the declared value of the land. It is surely to tie interest of the country that a check should be put upon the systematic depreciation of land for taxation purposes. Everybody knows that landowners in the Compensation Court hold very different views about the value of their land from what they have expressed in the Assessment Court, There is no injustice in preventing the deliberate evasion of a public [ duty; and clause 66 appears to us to have ! provided a very effective means for securing this desirable end.

As it now stands, the clause in question has taken a slightly different snaps from that which it originally presented. The substituted clause moved yesterday by Mr. McNab distinguishes carefully between improvements and the unimproved values of the land, and provides that compensation shall be assessed upoii them separately. The owner of any estate may intimate to the Department that he wishes his valuation to be raised, and the "Valuer-General will at once accommodate him. Even in the dry, formal way in which Mr. McNab put this, it sounds humorous; but it at least disposes of the remarkable objection raised by some Opposition critic.? of the bill that landowners would not be able to induce Government to give them the chance of raising their own valuations. • Beyond the liberal 10 per cent- or 5 per cent premium on the assessed value of the land, further compensation is offered to the extent ol 2A per cent, to be added to the total amount of compensation payable, "by way of compensation for the compulsory taking and ior any loss incurred theieoy." This last provision strikes us as almost superfluously generous; but it was not enough to prevent several Opposition members from reiterating the threadbare charge of "cruelty" against the Lands for Settlement Act. Mr. Lang's warning that Government is likely to acquire small farms by compulsory purchase is surely a very absurd suggestion, considering that about 5000 acres is the lowest limit yet reached in resuming land for settlement. But it i 3 rather late in the day for even Mr. Jas. Allen to assail the Lands for Settlement Act; for in spite of the furious denunciations tliat were once levelled at it, there are very few men of any political party in this country t/ho disapprove of it now. However, the object of clause 66 is not only to facilitate the acquirement of lands for settle-

'ment, but to indnT-ft.lanrkwmets. to deal I honestly with Government m-estimating'' I the value of their estates for the purposes of taxation. In the form-in which, it has now been, adopted, the clause seems < !.to' us to satisfy these requirements admirably, and we believe that it will ultimately be regarded as one of the most important additions made to our admhristrative legislation; by the Ward Government.