VALUATION OF LAND

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 261, 29 July 1921, Page 6

VALUATION OF LAND

EXPLANATION BY VALUER-GENERAL VIEWS OF FARMERS’ UNION With the Valuer-General (Mr. F. W. Flanagan) present, Mr. R. D. Duxfield (Auckland) presented to (lie Farmers’ Union Conference yesterday the report of a committee set up to consider remits on valuation. The committee recommended the conference to adopt the following resolutions: —■ That in future, for tho purpose of getting a more eq u i table valuation of rural lands and improvements thereon, tho Farmers’ Union be allowed- to nominate a representative with a knowledge of local values to assist the Government valuer; that due notice be served on every pro-perty-owner when valuation is to be made; that the whole of the Dominion should bo revalued periodically, and all such valuations be given effect to simultaneously; that in the event of an appeal the appellant should have the right to appoint nn assessor io the Assessment Court. Ur. W. W. Mulholland (North Canterbury) said he believed that the only fair wav of valuing rural land was upon its producing value. Captain Colbeck (Auckland) said that os at present constituted tho Assessment Court consisted of member's nil of whom were interested in au increase of taxation. He did not see how the land was to be valued upon its productive value, as suggested by Mr. Mulholland, unless an average over something like a sevenvear period were taken. Mr. W. B. Matberon (Marton) suggested that the proper man to accompany the valuer in his inspection was the pro-perty-owner.

■ The Valuer-General acceded to a request that he should make a statement. He said that the Department always tried to do justice to the public, but there were difficulties that only those directly engaged in valuation knew. With regard to the first proposal of the committee, lie could say that it had been considered by tho Department, but there had always been two special, difficulties: the question who should 'pay the extra man; and the more important question, what should be the relationship between the valuer and the man accompanying him? The system of giving notice of the valuations had been tried, but had not been a success in the cast. It was worth a trial again in the altered conditions of to-day, however. and he would put the practice into operation again. He would instruct the valuers to do their best to meet tho convenience of the farmers in this connection.

It was utterly impossible to make valuations periodically. It would necessitate the revaluation of New Zealand in one vear. The question of giving effect to all valuations simultaneously was one for the land tax commissioner. and not one on which he cared to express an opinion. The test of the necessity for a revaluation, in any particular district was the movement that had taken place in land values in the district since last valuation. He could point to districts where it would be fair to allow a valuation to stand for ten years, or to another district where it would be fair to allow the valuation to stand for four or five years. The constitution of the Assessment Court had been the subject of much correspondence and the source cf some acrimonv. In 1915, when the question was inquired into, the only alteration thought necessary had reference to tho President of the Court. The jmjv Court had been in operation for seven or eight years, and he believed that the settlers were better satisfied with it than with “the old Court, as there was now a permanent President who was very familiar with valuation law, and had gathered much ex nerience in valuation matters. The members of the, Court were of high standing, and he believed that they had the public confidence. In other countries the Assessment Court proceedings were carried out like those of an ordinary- court. There the cases were decided solely on the weight of evidence. The New- Zealand Court was more liberal than any in Australia or America. Mr. C. -K. Wilson (Auckland): Will you consider the questiofi of the objectors appointing an assessor? Mr. Flanagan: I have not formed any definite opinion on that, but I shall consider it. The Government assessor is a thoroughly independent man. It is immaterial to him whether the values are big'll or low. ■ ' Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Flanagan, if he could explain why of two adjoining counties one should have been valued twice in six years wAlle the other was not valued at all. Mr. Flanagan replied that possibly one 'of tlio-.counties did not require revaluing. . . Theoretically, revaluations should all be made at the same time; but that was impossible. ' Producing value, Mr. Flanagan added, was a factor in the making of the valuation, because it had its effect upon selling values. The impossibility, however of adopting producing values as the sole basis of valuation was apparent when the subject was fully discussed. How (to give an instance) was n piece of land to be valued on this basis if it was not producing anything? It might be capable of producing a great deal in the hands of one man, and very little in the hands of another., The report of the committee was adopted.