Their Land Valuation Policy.

"The Government Valuation of Land Act, 1896," is one of those cunning, foxy pieces of legislation that involves a great deal more than appears on the surface; and I have little doubt that its framer's intention was, as most certainly its effect will be, to covertly but largely increase the taxation of property owners. Its very title is a fraud, it is called "The Government Valuation of Land Act;" as a matter of fact, it enforces not only the valuation of the land, but of all buildings and every other class of improvements on the land, and makes the following dangerous provisions:—

Clause 9 says: "The general valuation roll, so long as it continues in force, shall be the standard roll from which the valuation rolls of all local authorities having rating-powers and rating on the capital or on the unimproved value shall be framed."

The local bodies are not compelled to adopt this valuation roll, but they may do so if they please and levy their rates on this valuation. It is provided that these valuations shall be used "so far as the Governor in Council from time to time directs for the following purposes:—

The assessment of duties of land-tax and otherwise under "The Land and Income Assessment Act, 1891."

Stamp duties under the Stamp Act.

Duties under "The Deceased Persons Estates Act."

For "Advances and investments on mortgage of land by or on behalf" of any or all of the public moneys in the hands of the Government and belonging to any of the departments, all of which are enumerated.

After making these explicit provisions, the following clause is introduced:—"Provided that in every case where such copy" (if a Government valuation) "is required for lending purposes by any of the aforesaid officers or departments," (or for a trustee or trustees) "it shall be the duty of the Valuer-General to satisfy himself that the entry is correct as to their value and other prescribed particulars of the property to which the entry relates; and for that purpose he shall amend the roll where necessary."

Ordinary readers would think that this meant that the Valuer-General was to satisfy himself that the copy was a correct one. What it really means is this: That while the Government compel the people to pay every kind of taxation, including succession duties, on page 6 these valuations, they know that they are so utterly unreliable that they dare not lend the Government moneys on them, nor do they dare compel private trustees to do so.

I have no wish to say one unkind word of the men who have been appointed Valuators under this Act, but I know of so many instances in which people have suffered through them, that I feel I should be evading a duty if I did not expose the wrong-doing of the Government in this matter. I am sure I speak well within bounds-when I say that fully two-thirds of them have not the slightest scientific knowledge of the work they undertook to do. If they had they would never have undertaken it for the miserable pittance doled out to them.

I will cite only one or two examples of their work. No doubt the Government employed their best men in the chief cities, and this is what one of them did in Queen Street, Auckland, as brought out in the evidence taken in the Assessment Court, in the case of the Bank of New South Wales, on the 26th and 30th of last month. Starting from the corner of Swanson Street and going right up to Wyndham Street, he valued the whole frontage at £175 per foot, and this without the least regard to the length of the various frontages, their depth, or the fact of their having a frontage at the back or no back entrance at all. In this valuator's opinion, land in the principal street in the city, having a frontage of 96 feet 6 inches to Queen Street and to Mills' Lane at the back, by a depth of 178 feet, was of precisely the same value as land close by, having a frontage of only 39 feet 6 inches by a depth of 94 feet 3 inches only, and without any back entrance whatever. There is not much science about this I wonder what he thought he was valuing. Possibly soap or candles, and that being a wholesale lot, he would lump it. But really when we remember that it is on this valuation that the whole of our taxation is to be levied, it becomes a very serious matter. I venture to say that if a proper scientific valuation of this block were taken, hardly two properties could be found of which the value per foot frontage was precisely the same.

Another Government Valuer gave the extraordinary evidence that in this block small frontage lots were of more value per foot than long frontages were. Being an architect, he should have known that the smaller the lot the greater the proportion taken up in brick walls; therefore the less proportion of available space, and, consequently, the less value per foot. This same gentleman also stated that the whole of the north-east side of Alexandra Street was of the same value (£4 per foot) from one end of the street to the other.

Every man in Auckland knows that the east side of Queen Street is much more valuable than the west side, yet another of these gentlemen said that "Coombes' Arcade section" (which has a depth of 168 feet, and a frontage to both Queen and High Streets) was "worth at the present time from £160 to £175 per foot," or no more than land on the west side of the street with only one frontage and not half the depth. So far as has come under my observation, the whole of the page 7 Auckland Province has been valued in this fashion. I know of instances in which the unfortunate owners are paying taxation on from three to six times the price they are willing to sell at.

In this instance, again, the "Poor Man's Government" makes the poor man suffer most, for, in many instances, the cost of contesting the valuation makes it cheaper to pay the unjust demand.

In this valuation, the Government no doubt have two objects: (1st) To screw out additional taxation, and (2nd) to make it appear that their measures have raised the value of the lands of the Colony.