LAND TAXATION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 15 February 1933, Page 3

LAND TAXATION

PROTESTS FROM TIMARU UNIMPROVED VALUE BASIS CRITICISED Protests against the taxation of freeholders oil the unimproved value of their holdings were expressed at a meeting of the Timaru Agricultural and Pastoral Association (reports the Christchurch “Press”). Several members expressed the opinion that South Canterbury was unfairly taxed in comparison with other parts of the Dominion. Others held that the land tax should he wiped out. It was decided to make representations to the Minister for Lands, the Hon. E. A'. Ransom. A sub-committee appointed to go into the question reported as follows The committee found that to obtain definite information would entail considerable difficulty. The objection of the present relatively high unimproved valuation in South Canterbury is that freeholders in this district pay much more in land tax than those in other parts of New Zealand, especially in the North Island. The committee recommends that in the meantime a protest be made to Parliament against the imposition of a tax on one class of land holders which tax falls heavily on freeholders. The committee also recommends that other kindred bodies be asked to support this protest. Mr C. L. Orbell was of opinion that the Association should take the matter up. He stated that farmers were not allowed anything like a fair value for breaking in their land, fencing and sowing it in grass. There was no question but that the South Island had been badly treated.

EXCESSIVE VALUATIONS Mr W. H. Orbell said that in the early days when the old Provincial Councils were functioning the various districts were valued separately. At that time the South Island was much more advanced than the North Island and consequently higher values were made. Those were the values on which the Department was now working and in his opinion that was the cause of the present position. Mr 11. B. S. Johnstone agreed with the previous speakers and said that when the State took over the valuation of land about the) ’9o\; South Canterbury was well broken in as a wheatgrowing area and was already fairly prosperous, while the North was more backward, being chiefly composed of tussock and swamp land. Consequently high values had been placed on the district and they still obtained to-day. He did not think anyone was to blame but he thought the Department’s atenion should be drawn to the matter, pointing out that South Canterbury farmers were bearing an unfair burden. Mr C. L. Orbell then moved along the lines of Mr Johnstone’s suggestion, the motion beiiig seconded by Mr T. Seatom NOT AN EQUITABLE TAX

Dr P. R. Woodhouse said lie thought they were attacking the problem from the wrong angle. If they did as had been suggested it would be tantamount to an admission that the land tax in the North and South Islands was an equitable form of taxation. He was not of that opinion. The better way would be to adopt the sub-committee’s recommendation and make a protest against the land ,tax. A similar view was taken by Mr H. Elworthy, who said they were about three years too late in tackling the problem of unimproved values. It would be better to go ahead and try to wipe out the land tax. It would not be a wise policy to stir up feeling between the North Island and South Island. Mr Orbell then withdrew his motion and it was left to the secretary and Dr Woodhouse to draft a resolution for transmission to the Minister for Lands and a letter to be sent to kindred associations, along the lines of the sub-committee’s recommendation. 1