THE LAND BILL.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13540, 18 October 1907, Page 5

THE LAND BILL.

m^ ■ — . — PRICE FOR'COMPTTESORT ACQUISITION. A LENGTHY DEBATE. •. MARKET VALUES TO BE TAXED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, October 17. The House, on moeting in the afternoon, immediately went into committee to consider the Land Laws Amendment Bill. Mr McNab moved a new clause in substitution of Clause 66, as follows : — (1) In pursuance of any requisition gazotted after the last day of March, 1908, no compensation shall be payable to any person by reason of the compulsory taking of such land, other than compensation assessed and determined in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) Compensation shall be separately assossod in respect of the unimproved value of the land and improvements. (3) Unimproved value is deemed to be the amount assessed in the district valuation- roll in force tinder the Land Valuation Act, 1896, at the time when the requisition taking the land is gazetted. (4) If the land taken or part therof is not separately valued, but is only part of a larger area so valued, the part taken shall be deemed such proportion of the valuation of the larger area as the Court determines. (5) The value of improvements shall be assessed as at the date of gazetting the requisition. (6) In every case shall be added to the total amount payable in respect of unimproved value a further sum calculated as follows: — (a) Not exceeding £50,000, a percentage of 10 per cent, thereof; (b) exceeding £50,000, a percentage of 10 per cent, in respect of £50,000, and of 5 per cent, in respect of the residue. \ (7) The owner of any estate or interest separately valued on the valuation roll may intimate to the Valuer-Gen-eral that he requires the valuation to be increased, and the Valuer-General shall insert the increased valuation on a subsidiary roll. (8) Every such notice to bo given cither in the month of March or within one month after the Valuer-General notifies a revision of Valuation. % (10) Improvements and unimproved value to have the same meanings as under the Valuation of Land Act Amendment Act, 1900. (11) When the valuation roll contains separate valuations of unimproved landin respect of the separate interests of two or more persons, the value of such land shall be deemed the aggregate amount of such separate valuations. (12) In every case shall be added to the total amount of compensation payable a sum equal to 2£ per cent, by way of compensation for compulsory taking and for any loss incurred thereby. Mr McNab> in, explaining the clause, said it was desired to give qwners of land the right to raise their valuations to any extent they pleased, and . the valuation so placed upon the land would be accepted by- the Government in acquiring the land under the compulsory powers. The impr.ovj&lftents would be valued separately, anxTland tax would bo paid on the owner's own valuation. Mr Massey contended that theaew clause was no improvement on the existing law, but rather the reverse; axcept r from the point of view of the Taxation Department,' the Government., or the single-taxers. It proposed to increase' very seriously the taxation of people who were already on the land. This 1 was, without question the, most objectionable clause in "'the Bill 'from the point of view of the settlers. He moved to strike out the first part of athe original clause as a prior amendment. Mr James Allen said Mr Massey's amendment wasfinoyed fHflj the object of deciding^ 'whether' w any alteration should be made in the law regarding the taking of land /cc^mpulfiorily . This clause applied to small %S well as large estates. He characterised the proposal as a cruel one. >0"/7 ■»< £ iij J Mr McNab pointed ouf that under the existing law land-owners were allowed to swear anything in a court. A land-owner swore to one valuation for assessment purposes, say £6 "an acre, and if the Government desired to acquire the land he .would swear that £9 per acre would be '& mere circumstance. The clause would operate fairly. The valuation would- be for three purposes" — namely, land tax, compulsory purchase, and death duties, and no other* purpose. Mr T. Mackenzie said the reason why the clause was proposed was because the Department had not got officers who were capable of judging when they had good value offered them. He added that the Government would not trust the courts or the- man who had got to sell the land. "The consequence was that they were going to place this Act on the Statute Book. Mr Lang said that if this clause became: law, each farmer wbuld have to place an extra value on his land over what it was worth in order to prevent his land being taken front MmL^Gtinso*' quently he would have to pay more in rates. He added that what the Government was giving away in the direction of the tariff was being taken back under the land proposals. Mr Hornsby said the Opposition members had contended, when the, Cheviot proposals were made, that it would prove a failure, yet they had now adr mitted that they had been a good thing for the country. He added that time ster up the value of land in Compensation Courts tha«fc[ the/rjf lands were of a far higher value thah'^tliey had|previously stated in Assessment Courts. This clause would brijag about the desired effect of mating^ tfeome I'pay1 'pay a fair taxation, which in past years they had successfully evaded. He supported the clause because he believed it would end a practice which amounted to a scandal, of ringing-in witnesses to bolster v pthe value of land in Compensation Courts when land was required by the State. / Mr Hanan contended that the clause was an equitable one. In the past the country had paid for land through the nose, and most outrageous prices had consequently been paid, but this state of affairs would be ended when the clause was placed on the Statute Book. Mr Izard said there was not a single farmer in the Dominion who, if he was asked, woulq not admit that the value of. his lan4,w,ast in excess of the valuation placed on it by the Valuation Department. Ho intended to stippdrt the clause. Mr W. Fraser said there was not a

single country in the world which levied taxation on the full market value ot : 3SH3^et "J£iß.%aajvhat the Government proposed to do under the clause, ii was recognised that land should pay taxation, but not on the full' market value. The Premier explained that the system of taxing lands had proved unsatisfactory, and the state of affairs that existed was such as to make tho Lands for Settlement Act exceedingly hard to operate. He contended that this attempt to create a feeling of uneasiness among small farmers was unjustifiableThe smallest estate that had been conipulsorily acquired under the Land for Settlements Act was 4923 acres in extent. It was absurd to say the clause would cause uneasiness, as when land was acquired compulsorily the owner was allowed by law to reserve 1000 acres of first-class land, and this, he explained, meant that he could reserve ruoro by the application of the "gridiron" He added that, if valuations were fair, a land-owner had no cause for fear, and if they were unfair he had the right under the clause to have the valuation revised and increased. IVIr Lang contended that under CJausc 13 of the Act the. Government could acquire small farmsnear the towns, anrl all an owner could -reserve was ten acres. Clause 13 .dealt with tho acquiring of land for workmen's homes, /and included lands within fifteen miles of towns. Mr Baume, in supporting the clause, said one estate acquired by the Government had been valued for assessment at £29,160. The Government had had to pay £48,000 for the same estate, and in four other cases the payment for estates so acquired had been considerably over the value for assessment purposes. The debate was continued at the evening, sitting. M.r Herries acknowledged that tho new", clause was an improvement on tho, clause contained* in the Bill. He pointed out that difficulty arose in increasing thief valuation" of the land, as frequently no notice waa given of intention to hold a sitting of the Court. He contended that the proposals would be most burdensome on settlers, and particularly so in regard to local rates. Mr McNab, in replying to various members, said his aim was that there should be a fair relationship between the price at which the Government bought the land and the amount at which it was valued for taxation. The Premier said that the discussion which had been in progress for four hours. and a-half had been largely repetition and reiteration of the same views as they had heard earlier in the day. . Mr Duncan contended that ow-nors cf large .estates taken over by the Government had been paid more than was n fair price for the lands. The owners o? Flax.bourne estate had, received £30.000 more than they should have. The Hatuma estate was another case. He thought the effect of the clause would be tb raise the price of estates higher than ever before. 'Mr Massey's amendment was negatived by 45 to 21. The division was as follows : — Against the amendment — E. G. Allen, Arnold, Barber, Barclay, Bennett, Buddo; Carroll, Colvin, Dillon, Duncan, Ell, Field, Flatman, Fowlds, Graham, Gray, Greenslade, Hanan, Hogan, Hogg, Hornsby, Izard, Kidd, Laurenson, McGowan, McNab, Macpherson, Ngata^Parata, Poland, Poole, Remington,. Ross, Rutherford, Seddon, Sidey, •Stallworthy, Stevens, Steward, Tanner, Thomson, Ward, Wilford, Witty, Wood. For the amendment — Aitken, J. Allen, Bollard, Fisher, W. Fraser, Hardy, Herries, . Houston, Jennings, Lang, Lethbridgey 'Lewis, T. Mackenzie. Major, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Okey, Reid, Rhodes, Symes. The Minister then moved tho new clause. Mr James Allen moved an amendments© sub-clause 5, with a view to substituting the Public Works Act, 1894, fj&v^Land for Settlements Act in assesstip||fti§ value of improvements. *Ti^}&Miinmidment wa s negatived by 4o ;feb^2l,-Tind the sub-clause passed. Mr Herries moved an amendment to provide that if the total amount pay-sble^did-naffc exceed £15,000, the additional percentage should be 15 per cent. His object, he said, was to protect tho small farmer. •The amendment, which was not debated, was negatived by 38 to 23. ! Mr James Allen moved an amendment te provide that subsidiary roll should not be used for the purposes of assessing death duties. — Negatived by 41 to 17, WELLINGTON, October 18. The debate was continued after midnight. ■ • Mr. McNab moved An addition to sub.-clause 7 to provide that the subsidiary roll should only be available for Land Act purposes. This was agreed to on the voices. ; Clause 66 as amenapassed. Clauses 67 to 73 (machinery clauses) were passed unamended. A- new clause 74 dealing with leases of' grazing farms at Cheviot was passed unstmended. Progress was reported and the House rose at 1 o'clock*