LAND VALUATIONS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 56, Issue 32927, 29 October 1947, Page 7

LAND VALUATIONS

CRITICISM IN THE HOUSE

MR A. S. SUTHERLAND

DEPARTMENT’S FORMULA

The staff of the Valuation Department had increased in one year from 163 to 260, and the salaries bill from £64,000 to £lOO,OOO, stated Mr A. S. Sutherland, M.P. for Hauraki, speaking in the House of Representatives recently. According to the Minister the staff would probably require to be increased by 50 per cent. Was New Zealand to become a nation of valuers, he asked. He did not attack the valuers personally, but their formula of valuing, which meant nothing but daylight robbery to anyone wishing to sell property. It was not right that a .vendor should have to sell his property at 1942 valuation, and be compelled to buy at 1947 valuation. The nations should pay the difference between the 1942 and 1947 valuations in the case of ex-servicemen and the others should have to look out for themselves.

Lack of Experience There was cause for complaint in the fact that many valuers were mere juveniles. They had insufficient experience, and many of their valuations had proved disastrous to sellers. He knew of an ex-serviceman with a bank overdraft of £4OOO on his property, who had sold it for £7OOO’ —yet the Land Sales Committee valuation had been only £3OOO. Government valuers had been accused of “side-stepping” by the judge of the Land Sales Court, who had described some of their valuations as being mystifying, Mr Sutherland said. They had also been accused of driving around with Land' Sales Committees and getting into a “huddle” with them before officially appearing before the committees. One 17 acre seaside property in his electorate suitable for subdivision had been valued at £675. Over the road another similar property of 35 acres had been valued at only £75. The judge of the Land Sales Court had accused the Crown valuers for lack of frankness.

On appeal the valuations had been altered considerably, but cases such as that indicated the necessity for a complete review of the valuing formula, on which the expenditure was colossal, not only to the Government but to seller of property and the method did not have the confidence of the public, and which tended to turn decent, honest people into rogues. Land agents had also done a lot to assist in rehabilitation as they had years of experience in valuing all classes of property, but under the Government’s formula of valuing their work had become most difficult.

Growing Dissatisfaction There was a growing dissatisfaction in the country because farmers considered that'there had been a general writing' down in favour of buyers. That was borne out when the cost of some of the development works undertaken by the department was considered. » In his own district there was a farm of 102 acres which formerly belonged to an ex-serviceman of World War 1. On his death the

property reverted to his widow and the Crown bought it very cheaply for £2OOO. The unimproved value when the Crown took

it over was £3OO and the widow was given £l5OO for the improvements. There was spent on the property in materials and repairs, and management charges £5489, representing approximately £53 8s an acre, and the property was yet not fully developed. The property was leased by the Crown to an A grade ex-serviceman of World War 2 and it was not producing as much, after the Crown had spent nearly £4OOO on it, as the original owner was taking from the land. That case indicated that the methods of valuing at the present time should be investigated and that the cost of land development by the Crown was too high.