LAND VALUATION SYSTEM

Hokitika Guardian, 8 September 1930, Page 7

LAND VALUATION SYSTEM

POSITION IN CANTERBURY. WELLINGTON, September 4. Tlie basis of land valuation in the Dominion was strongly attacked in the House to-day by Mr D. Jones (Mid-Oanterbury), when the Valuation Department’s report was under discussion. Air Jones said lie would no grudge the expenditure on the Valuation Department if the valuation system was satisfactory. A new system was required. There was no solid basis ior valuers to act upon under the system now in force. The taxation system had been altered from time to time over a period of years, 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 districts who had the same capital value. While some taxes worked out at £2 per sheep, others were at the rate of £l4 per sheep and more. When taxation amounted to a per sheep basis it was high time the Government took action. The valuation system would be a burning question at the next general election. The Minister of Lands had held a conference of land valuers to go into the question, and he stated that the present system was found satisfactory. That was wrong, and the system was cruelly unjust. He urged the Government to take the matter in hand immediately and initiate a sound basis of valuation.

SYSTEM NOT ALTERED. Tlie Minister of Lands, the Hon. E. A. Ransom, said he had not expected such an attack from Mr Jones. It was tlie more extraordinary because there had been no. alteration in the valuation system since tlie present Government came into office. Mr Jones: It has been altered'completely!' ;• Tlie Minister read the/report of a conference of land valuers. The report stated that in all valuations, made by the Department, capital value, unimproved value and value of improvements had to be assessed. In simple words the value of the land according to the Act was its market .value, so what the Department had to ascertain when making a valuation was what was a fair and reasonable price that could bo obtained at voluntary sales between'those who wanted ,to sell and were not compelled to do so, and those who desired to purchase and were not obliged to do so. 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 bo used for rating and taxation, and such objections were beard iby 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 a willing buyer and a willing seller the court would have, no hesitation in reducing tho 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 Bum 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 was strongly of opinion that the section required amendment, CANTERBURY’S LAND TAX. 0 Canterbury, said tho Minister, 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 possessed some dr the best, if not actually tho very best, natural grazing land in the Dominion, land that required but comparatively small expenditure on improvements to bring, it up to full carrying capacity. 'Hie 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 primary producers on a basis which would enable them to carry on. Comparisons between one district and another 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 land into productivity, etc.