LAND VALUATION SYSTEM

Taranaki Daily News, 5 September 1930, Page 9

LAND VALUATION SYSTEM

“BRUTALLY UNFAIR”

BASIS STRONGLY ATTACKED

MINISTER DENIES ALTERATION.

VALUER’S DIFFICULTY REVIEWED.

(By Wire —Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, Last Night. The basis of land valuation in the Dominion was strongly attacked in the House of Representatives to-day by Mr. D. Jones when the Valuation Department’s report was under discussion. Mr. Jones (Ref., Mid-Canterbury) said he would not grudge the expenditure on the Valuation Department if the valuation system was satisfactory. A new system was required. There was no solid basis foi valuers to act upon under the system now in force.

New Zealand had been altering its taxation System from time to time over a period of years, said Mr. Jones, and the valuation question had become one of great and serious interest to the farming community, for it was brutally unfair and was crushing some farmers out of existence while those in other districts were being sheltered. There were cases in which farmers were taxed seven times more than farmers in other distaricts who had the same capital value. Some taxes worked out at £2 per sheep, others were at the rate of £l4 per sheep, and more. It was high time the Government took action. The valuation system would be the turning question at the next general election. The Minister of Lands had held a conference of land valuers to go into the question, and had stated that the present system was , found satisfactory, said Mr. Jones. That was wrong; the system was cruelly unjust. He urged the Government to take tile matter in hand immediately and initiate a sound basis of valuation.

The Minister of Lands, Mr. E. A. Ransom, said lie had not expected such an attack frofn Mr. Jones. It was the more extraordinary because there there had been no alteration in the valuation system since the present Government came ihto bflice. Mr. Johes: It has been altered completely. I'he Minister read the report of tile conference of land valuers. The report stated that in all valuations made by the department capital value, unimproved value and the value of improvements had to be assessed. In simple words, the value of land according to the Act was its market value, so what the department had to ascertain when making a valuation was what whs a fair and reasonable price that could be obtained at voluntary sales between those who wanted to sell and were not compelled te do sb, and those who desired to purchase and Were not obliged to do so. ■ NO BETTER PLAN SUGGESTED. * : The conference had been unable to suggest any basis of valuation that would be likely to give more satisfactory results. The Act provided for the right of Objection, to every valuation that was to be used for rating and taxation. and such objections were heard by a court consisting of a magistrate and assessors. If any owner could show that the department’s valuation was not likely to be realised between willing buyer and willing seller the court would have no hesitation in reducing the valuation.

One section of the Act providing that any owner of land who was dissatisfied with the valuation of his land as finally determined by the court might give the Valuer-General notice that he required his valuation to be reduced or the land to be acquired by the Crown at that sum was giving some trouble. Probably the best suggestion was that the land should be advertised as open for sale for a period of, say; three months, and that the valuation should be reduced only in the event of a sale not eventuating. . The conference had been strongly of opinion that the section was required, and Canterbury had been cited as a district which was carrying an undue proportion of land tax when compared with the North Island on a sheep-carrying basis. There were reasons for that, the principal one being the fact that Canterbury possesssed some of the best, if not actually the very best, natural grazing land in the Dominion; land that required but comparatively small expenditure on improvements to bring it tb full carrying capacity. The effect of rating was also very favourable to Canterbury notwithstanding that it was particularly well served by roads and railways. Mr. Ransom said he felt sure all members of the House were anxious .to place the primary producers on a basis which would enable them to carry oil: Comparisons between one district and anotherd were not always helpful. To take one item of expenditure and disregard another was to throw the whole position out of balance. They had to consider the position in respect to county rates, how far capital had had to be expended to bring the land into productivity, and other factors.