Minimum Rates Deferred

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30883, 16 October 1965, Page 1

Minimum Rates Deferred

(Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, October 15. Provisions originally contained in the Rating Amendment Bill making the rateable unimproved value of a property its actual unimproved value or 15 per cent of its capital value, whichever was the greater, were removed from the bill because they would create just as many anomalies as they would have removed, the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Seath) told Parliament today. During the second reading debate on the measure he said the new anomalies would have been created particularly in smaller centres and rural areas. “Some representations made to the Local Bills Committee proposing the adoption of minimum unimproved value, as suggested, be made optional as an additional system of rating,” he said. “The committee considered there would be no point in

instituting an additional system of rating even on an optional basis, where the system contained a number of very serious anomalies. It was proposed, he said, to withdraw the clause in the bill, making all local authority land rateable. Such a move had been recommended by the 1963 Committee on Local Authority Finance. Only the Municipal and Counties associations had been represented on the committee, however, and it had been decided to discuss the recommendation with other local authority associations before legislation was introduced. This decision had been overlooked and the committee had agreed to the withdrawal of the* clause to enable the discussions to be held. Consolidation Bill Mr Seath said he hoped to reintroduce the legislation in the rating consolidation measure he proposed to bring forward next year. Dealing with provisions permitting local authorities to postpone portions of rates payable on residential properties which have been included in commercial or industrial zones, the Minister said the relief would apply to all types of rates levied on such properties.

Local authorities granting postponements were required to satisfy themselves at 12-monthly intervals the properties were still eligible for it. “For this reason it may be necessary to inspect any property concerned and provision has been made for this.”

Mr A. J. Faulkner (Opp., Roskill) said nothing caused more heart-burning in urban areas, particularly to old people, than rising rate demands. “Tn many cases they have risen above a level elderly people on fixed incomes can meet,”.. Right Of Entry He said the Opposition welcomed the provision for the postponement of rates, but had reservations about the powers of entry to people’s homes granted local body officers and the questioning powers given them. The Opposition would move amendments to the bill during committee-stage consideration to remove the right of entry, but to provide for questions and answers.

The amendment, said Mr Faulkner, would remove the repugnant rights of entry. “In an age where privacy is becoming a privilege, rather than a right, it will strike a blow for family privacy.” Mr D. J. Riddiford (Govt., Wellington Central) said there

was great need for new rating systems in some cities. Minimum unimproved values of 15 per cent of capital value could perhaps be made optional. Or the annual value procedure could be made subject to appeals on values fixed to an independent appellate authority. It might even be useful to allow a subdivision of rating districts within the territory of any local body, under which various rating or valuation systems could be applied in various districts.

Messrs H. L. J. May (Opp., Porirua) and N. E. Kirk (Opp., Lyttelton) both declared themselves opposed to the minimum unimproved value scheme. “Peeping, Spying” Mr Kirk also attacked rights of entry for local body inspectors offered in the bill which, he said, represented no more than another avenue for “peeping and spying through people’s properties.” In reply, Mr Seath said that the consolidation of the Rating Act, which he hoped to introduce next year, would tidy up any anomalies which might be revealed when the amendment bill became law. He said that it was important to give inspectors the right to inspect shearers’ quarters, as machinery inspectors had the right to enter factory premises. Mr Kirk: But we don’t support inspectors entering shearers’ homes.

The bill was committed.