LAND VALUATION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1561, 3 October 1912, Page 8

LAND VALUATION.

BILL TO'EXEMPT IMPROVEMENTS. SECOND HEADING DEBATE. ' The Hon. W. 1 , . irASSEY (Prime Minister) moved the second rendiu* of the Valuation of Land Amendment Bill. He said it was a very short Bill, but one to which a great deal oi importance would be attached bj; people on tho land, lhe principle o£ our taxation was that taxes were levied on unimproved value But, unfortunately {here was a well-found-ed belief nowadays that the more a man improved his land tho more energy ho displayed, and the harder he worked, (he lusher grew his taxation, because his improvements were not properly exempted, lhe object of the Bill was to allow pepplo to understand that Parliament would'not penalise a man for his industry. There was not the slightest intention .to relieve tho man on the land from bearing his pro--per share of taxation. His opinion was that all men should bear a share of tho taxation of the country, according to his ability to pay. The Valuer-General had said hat under the present law land valuers had no option but to deprive an owner of part of his improvements created by his own expenditure of labour and capital, lor instance, if a man cleared his lanclci virgin bush, after a time the clearing was forgotten in the assessment of improvements. Likewise the cost of the original draining of swamp land was not allowed. Such improvements as these would bo exempted under the proposed amending Act. On account «f complications it would be impossible to make the exemption of certain improvements apply to boroughs. The Hon. D. BUDDO (Kaiapoi) dealt at length with'the technical, details of tho Bill. Hβ urged the Minister to take power in the Bill to make regulations and contended that a fixed value- should be set upon the improvement due to the original . breaking in of bush or swamp land. It would be unfair to impose this responsibility on valuers. A Long Standing Grievance. M /- B. NEWMAN (Rangitikei) congratnlated the Gavernment upon their attempt to remove a long, standing griovance with country settlers. Ever since tho abolition of the property tax settlors had complained that their improvements were under-valued. When bush disappeared it was difficult to persuade a Valuer that several pounds an acre had been expended in removing it. Mr.-Buchanan: It sometimes costs £5 «n acre. Mr. Newman concurred, and said that injustice was also suffered by settlers who drained swauip lands. He commended various other features of the Bill. Mr. G. V. PEARCE (Patea) said that a Bill of this kind had been wanted for many years. His only complaint was that it did not go far enough. The Bill provided for the recognition of direct improvements, but there were various indirect improvements which should also be Many things were accounted unearned increment which, in fact, were very dearly earned. It would bo wise to .exempt plantations from all taxation (graduated or otherwise) in districts where the bush had been cut out. The county council of which he was chairman hail recently passed a resolution agreeing that land used for plantations should be exempted from local taxation.. This benefit should not apply only to native bush. Gums nnil other imported trees might not be so pretty to look at, but they better from the utility point r.f view. The Bill was a step in the right direction. Mr. G. WITTY (Riccarton).caid he was afraid that the Bill would play into the hands of tho largo man instead of the small man, and would tend to reduce graduated taxation. Valuation should be made upon the prairie value. Mr. Mnssey: Would von support that? Mr. Witty: Yes. Government members: What is it? Mr. Witty. Tho. original value Us addpd that the original price of pome hinds had lieon "is. an acre and of other lands If!?, an acre. Mr. W. XOSWOKTHV (,\ Abnrton) commended tho Bill. Throughout lliu whole country people had not been allowed enough for improvements when their land was being valued for taxation purposes. There was land half the value of which was dne to immovemeiit, and yet no morn than one-eighth of it? value would be sot down to improvement.-. The Bill Opposed. Mr. L. M. ISIT'L* (Christfhiireli North) raid that Hii* pill-K-u.i the Bcnjmuin or many others that would be, brouclit dowa_

by the present Government to benefit land-owner.--. Nothing else was to be expected from the party in power. Exemptions on plantations would benefit tho largo landowner, and not tho small farm-' it. He did not think that the treeplanter should bo favoured to the extent suggested by the Premier. Some timbergrowing land had been a curse to this country. While he approved some features of this Bill, in its cutiretv it was an evidence that this House was the nappy hunting gruumlof tho land-owner. , Mr. A. 11. JIiNDMARSH (Wellington' South) argued- that there, must b:> an arbitrary ti'.nu fixed for the valuing of improvements, and all ininrovemcnts to be exempted must be capable of bring brought, to the test of value nt any time. How could a valuer possibly say what it bad cost to fell timber 500 years ago, for, to bo logical, the exemption to be made under the proposed Bill should stand for all time. It would bo impossible to work this Bill even in Now Zealand in such districts as Alcaroa, which had been set-led fifty years ago. Mr. E. M'CAELUM (Wairau) heartily congratulated the Minister on having introduced his Bill, for it embodied proposals which he had pledged himself to support. In answer to Mr. Hindmarsli he pointed out that in Assessment Courts the onus was always thrown upon the owner of land of showing that the value fixed by the valuer was wrong. It would be for the owner to prove what had been the cost of foiling bush a hundred yeirs ago.

An Impossible System,

Mr. W. C. BUCHANAN (Wairarapn) said the prciuit debate had shown mure Certainty and 'uniformity, w,hich should to separate the total vuiuu <if land into two portions—improvements on the oneside and unimproved value en'the othur. Certainly and uniformity, which should be o:-sentials in tho assessment of ti.vition, must be absolutely impossible under our system in Now Zealand. He challenged any valuer to come on to his property and say what it had cost to bring his laud to its present state. However, he did not propose to arsjuq against taxing on unimproved value, simply because he recognised that tho country was committed to this system; He would vote for ths Bill because he thought, it would remedy many existing injustices. Mr. G. W. KUSSELL (Avon) supported the Bill for the reason that it. would i?ive fuller effect than had been given hitherto to what had always boon the policy of tho Literal party. He admitted that there would bs difficulty in.making provision that all land-owners would receive benefits under the Bill on the same basis. He approved of the Bill also because it exempted .plantations' as improvements. He did not.think, however, it would be passible to exempt such improvements- us bnshiellin? for all time, especially when lands had passed through the hands of 20 or more owners. Ho confessed that ho had'viewed with suspicion the Government s proposal re land valuation, becauso he thought they would reduce the taxation on large holdings. There was nothing of this in the Bill, and he therefore approved of it.

Jlr, Pv, G -J ETjL (Christchurch South) opposed the Bill on the ground that it would reduce the total amount of land tax collected. He maintained that the increased values of land.were due not to the industry of. the farmers, but to Ihe increased prices procurable for cxnorts, ami other agencies outside of the control or farmers. Land values wero created by the community and not by the individual owner. Tree-planting. HHI* - V 00 1? ( T,,! !P e H "^Ported.Hie Bill. He emphasised the great value of encouraging tree-planting, and said that tin (iovcrnineut had'not done enough in this direction in the past. A scientific expert should bo appointed to control tho torestry Department, and to advise individuals who undertook planting. He appreciated tho object of the Bill, but foresaw many difficulties in arriving ut the value of primary improvements on the hind. Mr. W. A. VEITCH (Wonganni) drew a distinction between "land-owner" and tanner,' stating that they were often different individuals. This measure involved a reduction in taxation on laiid which must lead to a proportionate iucreaso in land values. This would bane-i fit the land-owner, but not the working (armor, who paitl rent or the farmer who had a large mortgage on his holding. Mr. K. W. SMITH (Waimnrino) said., that the Bill was a .'ten in the right dl rection. The present law .operated very harshly against those who held bush for milling purposes. . These people deserved consideration, as well as those who vmt in for re-planting.

Prime Minister Replies

The Hon. W. F. MASSEY (Prime Ministor) siud it would bo unnecessary for him to reply, for the reason that there had been ,no advcr&o criticism offered to tho Kill. Hβ could only thank honourable members for the favourable reception given to the Bill, and especially the members for Cliristchurch North and Christchurch South for the knowledge they had displayed, and for their confidence in himself. Miv Ell: You aro satisfied with very littie. ■ ■ .' " Mr. Massey: T have just expressed myself satisfied with tlie honourable gentleman. (Laughter.) He went on to speak of a point raised by the member for Eicuartnn, who had suggested that this Bill wouid nullify the increased gradua&d land tax proposals. Hβ pointed out that in estates of over JE30.000 in value—tho estates effected by the graduated ' textile, improvements amounted in value to four millions sterling, and those in estates under ,£3o,ooo'in value to twentyfour millions— a proportion of six to one. Ko that for every pound that owners of large eslatrs would benefit, the. small men would benefit in that proportion. The Bill was read a second time on the voices. Tho House rose at 0.25 a.m.