Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

FRIDAY, 15 OCTOBER 1943

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Supply. [15 OCTOBER.) Questions. 963

FRIDAY, 15 OCTOBER, 1943.

J\fr. SPEAKER (Hon. E. J. Hanson7

Buranda) took the chair at ll a.m.

QUESTIONS.

AMERICAN AND COMMONWEALTH RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK.

Mr. DART (Wynnum) asked the Minister for Transport-

'' 1. How many locomotives imported from America are now in service on the QlH~ensland railways W

'' 2. What other rolling stock has been p1'ovided by the Commonwealth for use on the Queensland railways~''

The MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT (Hon. J. Larcombe, Rockhampton) replied-

'' 1. Nineteen.

'' 2. One Garratt locomotive and 345 fiat-top bogie waggons.''

FOOD SUPPLIES, N ORTIIERN DISTRICTS.

Mr. L. J. BARNES (Cairns) asked the Premier-

'' Will he ask the appropriate Common­wealth authorities to take action to ensure that civilians in the Tully, Innisfail, Gordonvale, Cairns, and Mareeba areas, have consideration given to them regarding necessary food supplies, as these people are not now receiving a fair deal~''

964 Questions. [ASSEMBLY.] Coal and Oil Shale, &c., Bill.

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND HO]}IE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon, Ithaca), for The PREMIER (Hon. F. A. Cooper, Bremer) replied-

' 'Action has already been taken by the Government in the direction suggested.''

HoME LEAVE, NEW GUINEA TROOPS.

Mr. L. J. BARNES (Cairns) asked the Premier-

'' In view of the fact that Australian soldiers have been in New Guinea for 18 months without home leave, while Allied soldiers are transported back on leave at least every six months, will he contact thP proper Federal authorities and a'sk them to arrange similar leave for our troops~''

The SECRETARY FOR HEALTH A~n HO~IE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon, Ithaca), for The PRE~HER (Hon. F. A. Cooper, Bremer), replied-

'' I invite the attention of the hon. member to the statement by the Minister for the Army, as published in the Press of 17 September, 1943, in which he indi­cated that he had been assured by General Blamey that leave was being arranged to the full limit of transport available."

COAL PRODUCTION, SOL"fHERN QuEENSLAXD.

Mr. lUOORHOUSE (Windsor) asked the ·secretary for Mines-

" vVith regard to the South Queensland coalmining area-

1. vVhat is the number of working days per week for the production of coal~

2. How many hours are worked by each man per day~

3. What is the tonnage of coal produced per head per day~

4. What is the average cost per ton at the siding~

Tlte SECRETARY FOR MINES (Hon. V. C. Gair, South Brisbane) replied-

'' 1. The awm·d governing conditions in the coa1mining industry throughout Aus­tralia provides for five working days per week.

'' 2. Under the &ame award eight hours per day, bank to bank, are prescribed.

'' 3. Approximately 2.6.

'' 4. Approximately £1 3s. 10d.''

ALLEGED "\V ASTE OF COAL, BRISBANE POWER HOUSE.

Mr. MOORHOUSE (Windsor) asked ~he :Secretary for Mines-

'' 1. Is he aware that coal stored at the Brisbane City Council power house, New Farm, is burning away and not being used for the production of power~

'' 2. In view of the supposed shortage of coal, what action has he taken to save this gross waste~''

The SECRETARY FOR MINES (Hon. V. C. Gair, Sonth Brisbane) replied-

'' 1. I am informed that as far as is known there is now no fire in the coal stocks at the City Council power house, New Farm. Some da'ys ago it was reported to me that there was a fire, and I immediately communicated with the General Manager of the Brisbane Tram­ways, Mr. S. L. Quinn, who informed me­(a) That there was a small fire caused by spontaneous combustion; (b) that it was the first fire which had occurred for 25 years in their coal stocks.

'' 2. Mr. Quinn fmther informed me that every precaution was being taken to meet the emergency by-(a) Running a pipe line from the river and installing a pump to spray the coal with salt water; (b) utilisation of coal from the affected a'rea as soon as possible. The loss of coal has been negligible. I think it can be safely assumed that no coal consumer will at any time, and particularly now in view of the existing coal shortage, which is not supposed but very real, allow his coal reserves to be wasted by fire or any other n1eans.''

SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY.

Mr. L. J. BARNES (Cairns), without notice, aslred the Secretary for Health and Home Affairs (as Acting Premier)-

" 1. What Standing Order gave him authority to move his motion yesterday that the hon. member for Bundaberg be suspended from the service of the House without pay~

'' 2. I.f the Standing Orders do not provide for suspension without pay, on what legal provision did he rely in moving such motion~''

The SECRETARY :FOR HEALTH AND HOlliE AFFAIRS (Hon. E. M. Hanlon, Ithaca) replied-

'' The interpretation of the Standing Orders is not a question for the Chief Secretary. Parliament is master of its own internal affairs and must endeavour to see that business is facilitated in Parliament and that the dignity and prestige of Parliament are upheld.''

COAL AND OIL SHALE MINE WORKERS (PENSIONS) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

INITIATION.

The SECRETARY FOR MINES (Hon. V. C. Gair, South Brisbane) : I move-

'' That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirableness of intro­ducing a Bill to amend the Coal and Oil Shale Mine Workers (Pensions) Acts, 1941 to 1942, in certain particulars.'

Motion agreed to.

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OcTOBER.] Valuation of Ldnd Bill. 965

STATE ADVANCES ACTS AND OTHER ACTS (RATES OF INTEREST) BILL.

INITIATION.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. H. A. Bruce, The Tableland): I move-

'' That the House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider of the desirableness of intro­ducing a Bill to provide for the reduction of the rate of interest payable to the State Advances Corporation in respect of advances made pursuant to the State Advances Acts, 1916 to 1934, and certain other Acts and to the ~Workers' Homes Cor­poration in respect of contracts of sale made pursuant to the Workers' Homes Acts, 1919 to 1934.'' Motion agreed to.

VALUATION OF LAND BILL.

SECOND READING.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. H. A. Bruce, The Tableland) (11.9 a.m.): I move-

'' That the Bill be now read a second time.''

There was a considerable amount of debate on the initiatory stage of the Bill. The Leader of the Opposition approved of the principles contained in it and expressed the view that the success or failure of the scheme depended on the selection of the right man for the position of Valuer-General. I can assure the hon. gentleman and all hon. members that everything will be done to obtain the right man for the position.

The hon. member for Maree made some comments concerning his experience before the Land Court and referred to the great expense of taking appeals to that tribunal. I have taken ~h? troubl~ to find out exactly what the position was m the case mentioned. When speaking to the initiatory motion he said-

'' I have had some experience of appeals before the Land Court. I acted for the appellant in an appeal concerning land at Kangaroo Point. We were in the court for only half an hour when the chairman asked that the parties consider the matter pri­vately before he heard the evidence. In that case, the court allowed £'250 for costs and barristers' fees-but that was for the half hour that we were in the court. It will thus be seen that it is a big expense to take an appeal to the Land Court.''

I find the real position to be entirely different. Five cases of claims for compensation on account of resumptions for dock purposes came before the court. These are fully reported in Volume 18, Crown Land Law Reports, page 159. Mr. Matthews, barrister, appeared for the claimants. The costs asked for and allowed are stated in each case. The hon. member for Maree was one of the valuers for the claimants and the costs asked for on his behalf were 20 guineas in No. 1 case and 7 guineas in each of the others, a total of £49. The total costs allowed for the cases amounted to 170 guineas, and this included fees for

counsel, solicitors, and two valuers. The total amount asked for was 275 guineas. That is an entirely different position from that stated by the hon. member for Maree, who stated that the court allowed £250 for costs and barristers' fees, and that that was for the half hour for which they were in court. When statements like that~ are made they do not help the passage of the Bill, and certainly they do not amount to sound criticism of the Bill.

On the other hand, the hon. member for Fassifern said that there were no reasons for the introduction of the Bill, that one of its objects was to increase land valuations, and that its effect v;ould be to increase agricul­tural valuations. He cited his own case. ''Country Life'' also asserted that the Bill would mean an increase of land valuations. Of course, that article was written without a proper regard for the real objects of the Bill. It was inspired by some of the bigger land­owners who now will have to pay reasonable rates on the new valuations to be determined.

I got Mr. Richardson, the Assistant Com­missioner of Land Tax, to go into the case stated by the hon. member for Fassifern, who, in the course of his speech on the earlier stage of the Bill, said-

'' Only a few years ago I had occasion to complain about the value placed on a piece of land that had been severed; the value 1 had placed on the severed portion was con­sidered low. The department sent another inspector to inspect this severed portion. He agreed that the value I placed on it was quite right; in fact, he thought it a bit too high and the department reduced the valua­tion by about £5. But the matter did not finish there. The valuer went round and inspected the other properties I bought 16 years ago, on vv;hich I had spent a consider­able amount of money. As a result of h1s inspection, the valuation of these proper­ties was increased by £500. Had I shut my mouth and accepted the other valuation without question, I should have been better off. What I am trying to point out is: that these men are sent out from the city to value country land They are quite good fellows. They may have a competent know­ledge of certain districts. After putting all my energy and a considerable amount of my savings into this parcel of land, which had already been valued three times, this valuer came along and said its value was £500 more. That valuation is consider­ably higher than the local-authority valua­tion. Its former value compared favour­ably with that of other lands in the dis­trict. The local valuer had valued it at what it was worth after making an allow­ance for necessary improvements.''

The facts of this case disclosed by depart­mental records are-

"For many years prior to 1939, Mr. Muller was assessed on his own declared unim'proved value, which coincided with the departmental unimproved value.

"For 1939 he was assessed on an unim­proved value of £2,945, his own unimproved value being £2,790, and that of the local

966 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Lf!nd Bill.

authority £2,680. He made representations to have the unimproved value of one small parcel reviewed. A depaltmental valuer was directed to inspect this parcel and, at the same time, as Mr. Muller's values had not been reviewed for more than 12 years, the valuer was directed to make a check value of the whole of his property. This he did, and on 10 May, 1940, Mr. Muller was advised uf the result of the depart­mental valuer's inspection. Actually, the valuer found that as at 30 June, 1939, the total unimproved value of Mr. Muller's holding was £2,888, against the assessed value of £2,945 and the owner's value of £2,790 and the local authority value of £2,680. As a matter of fact, for 1939 Mr. Muller's objection was allowed and he was reassessed on his uwn value of £2,790. The new departmental values were not applied until 1940. The aggregate increase was only £98, and not £500 as suggested by Mr. Muller"

'rhe hon. member for Fassifern actually used those figures to m'ake it appear that he was charged an auditional £500, whereas the total increase was only £98. I am quoting figures taken from departmental records. I am not going to say that the statement by the hon. member for Fassifern is untrue, because he may have to pay on an auditional £500, but it was for other reasons than those mentioned by him. The total increase in the valuation ir, the case stated by him was £98.

JUr. Muller: You have not got the correct parcels of land.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: Those figures relate to all his parcels of land. Apparently he was satisfied with the departmental inspection since for the past three years he has auopted the departmental value as his own and has accepted assess­ments on this basis without objection.

The memornnuum I have, continues-

" Of the four inspections that have been made of Mr. Muller's land, within the last 20 years, none were mauc by 'men sent out from the city to value country land.' They were all men of wide experience in the valuation of country properties and during their careers either owned or worked farms of their own. Town valuers are never given assignments in country districts."

The statement of the hon. member for Fassi­fern that a town valuer was sent up to carry out valuations of country land is entirely unfounded. These valuers are experienced men. They are men who have been engaged in valuing country land, as stated by my advisers; town valuers are not sent into the country to value country land.

The hon. member for Sandgate asked what co-operation existed between the Federal and State Land Tax Departments in valuing unimproved lal1d for tax purposes. The definitions of ''improved value,'' ''improve· ments, '' ''unimproved value,'' and '' valml of improvements'' are the same in the Federal and State L:md Tax Acts and the Bill at present before the House. The reply to the hon. member for Sandgate, therefore, is that

the terms used in the State and Federal Land Tax Acts are exactly the same as under this Bill.

Mr. Nicklin: That does not make it right, though.

The SECRETARY J<'ORPUBLIC WORKS: It makes it as nearly right as it can possibly be. The h011. gentleman is inclined to believe that our adoption of the terms does not make it right, but we are just as much entitled to thing it is right as he is to think that he is right. This course will tend to bring about uniformity in administration.

Some hon. members appear to have the idea that this Bill is introduced with the object of sAtting up a taxing authority. On the contrary, it is designed only to bring about uniformity in fixing land values. It is purely a Valuation Bill. It creates a State depart­ment for valuing land. Of course, local authorities will strike their rates on the valuations decided on by this department, but this department in itself will in no way be a taxing authority.

:JUr. Decker: Will the State land tax be based on the valua tions of this departmenU

The SECRETARY :I<' OR PUBLIC WORii:S: That is not for me to say. This valuation will be made by this new department in the interests of local authori­ties. What the Secretary for Public Lands, or the Department of Public Lands, or the Government may do in the future I cannot foretell. I assume that this Bill will be of immense assistance to all authorities in that it seeks to bring about a sound method of valuation. I take it that no-one, even in the Department of Public Lands, would object to taking the department's valuations as a basis. It will certainly be a much more uniform basis, and more likely to be a correct method than the bits-and-pieces method of the pre­sent time. I do not wish to impugn anyone's honesty, but to-day we have men making valuations of land involving huge sums of money who are not receiving much more than a living wage, bearing in mind the cost of living, yet it is important work. I repeat that I do not desire to impugn the honesty of these men. When this department is estab­lished we shall have valuers responsible to the Gevernment. 'rhev will be selected from the most experienced· men available in the State. There will be no possibility of their being influenced by anybouy and their valu­tions will be based on the unimproved value of land.

Mr. Yeates: Who are the valuers you do not wish to impugn~

lir. SPEAKER: Order!

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: I said I did not wish to impugn anyone's honesty but of my own knowledge I know men who are receiving little above the basic wage-a small amount of money indeed­who are making valuations involving huge sums. That is all I say. It is possible for men in such a position to be influenced.

Valuation of Land Bill . [15 OcTOBER.] Valuation of Land Bill. 967

Under this Valuation of Land Bill we shall have men who will be independent of the local authorities and of the persons whose land they will be valuing.

Mr. Muller: They will be under the con­trol of the CTOwn.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC WORKS: That is correct. The only other implication of the interjection is they will be controlled by the Crown. Parliament represents the Crown and the gentle insinuation is that the members of the Government of the day­whoever they may be-may influence these valuers. I do not think hon. members need worry about that so fur as this Bill is con­rerned.

Another matter raised by way of inter­jection was the minimum valuation. A minimum valuation is embodied in the Local Government Act, and the department would, of course, have regard to that l'rovision. I know of districts in Queensland where the local authorities could not carry on if there was not a minimum yaluation. One out­standing case is Gympie, where some of the bml is held under mining titles and the people have all the ame:nities of electric light, water, roads, etc.; unless there was a minimum valuation it would not be possible for the local authority to give these ameni­ties. I take it the new department, in making its valuations, would recognise the statutory provision for a minimum valuation and it is not necessary for us to repeat it in this Bill. vVe want to keep right a\vay from the idea that this Bill has anything to do with actual taxation or lavs down a rate of tax. vVe want it to be ciearly a matter of valuation, a Bill to fix the unimproved value of the land in the State of Queensland.

JUr. NICKLIN (Murrumba) (11.27 a.m.): I was hoping that in the second-reading speech of the Minister we should have a further explanation of the principles of the Bill, but unfortunately he seems to have confined himself to a criticism of what was said on the initiation in Committee. I think there is a good deal in this Bill that needs explaining by the Minister.

As the hon. gentleman said-and as I said on the initiation stage-I am in favour of the principle of a uniform valuation of land; and I think most hon. members favour that principle, because they realise the need for uniformity in values of similar classes of land throughout the length and breadth of the State. We must admit that land valuation in this State has been carried on in a more or less unorganised and haphazard manner up to the present time. For example, we have 146 local authorities in this State, each with its valuer. We have the State and Federal Land Tax Departments, each with its valuing department. We have the Bris­bane City Council with a special valuing department. We have other Government departments concerned with land values, such as the Stanw Office, Public Curator, and Bureau of Rural Development, which also maintain their valuers. So for these thousands of assessments of the value of land we :l'lnd

we have a very large official staff employed, to say nothing of the private valuers.

This is the second State in the Common­wealth to introduce a Valuation of Land Bill. New South Wales and the Dominion of New Zealand each have had a Valuation of Land Act for a considerable time, and from inquiries I have made I think the departments there are giving every satisfaction and seem to meet with the general approval of most people concerned with the values of land. To support that statement, I will quote the opinion expressed by Mr. Flanagan, the Valuer-General of New Zealand, after the department had been operating in that Dominion for 17 years. Pointing out the measure of success the department had had, he states-

'' T~1e Valuation Department has been in existence for 17 years, and having regard to the want of knowledge on the part of the public respecting the provisions ?f. t_he Valuation of Land Act, and to the mlba­tory difficulties which had to be overcome in making valuations from information which, though not entirely new, \Yas yet defective by reason of the unevenness of the old land values, it may be affirmed that the objects of the Act have been fairly att<Jined with comparatively little friction.

''Of course, inacctuacies and mistakes have occurred and will occur, but these are inevitable in any system of valuation. They will, however, diminish gradually.''

We must admit that an advantage of a Valuer-General's Department is that it ensures expert valuation of land based on principles that will give uniformity and accuracy, and eliminate personal and political considerations. In our State we have had local authorities favouring the principle of low valuations, and others favouring the principle of high valua­tions. We have the anomaly of similar parcels of land adjacent to each other and equal in all respects having a very w·ide difference in the valuations put on them by the local authorities.

Mr. Power: This Bill will correct that.

Mr. NICKLIN: Admittedly, it will. I am just quoting these instances in support . of the principle of uniformity in the ~aluat;on of land which this department Will brmg about if it does its job. That is the reason for its creation. This is not the first time, as I mentioned on the first reading, that a Valuation of Land Bill has been considered by this Assembly. One _was. introduced i~to this House in 1917, but It did not meet With the favour of the Legislative Council, con­sequently it was thrown out and was not persisted in by the Legislative Assembly at that time. It is not until now that we have had a Valuation of Land Bill introduced into the Queensland Parliament.

])Ir. Healy: Many sound reforms went to the same place, you know.

Mr. NICKLIN: They may have. Per­haps much of the bad legislation in this Assembly might have been corrected and

968 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Land Bill.

improved if there had been an Upper House. It works both ways. But we are not at present discussing the merits or demerits of an Upper House, but the merits or demerits of a Land Valuation Bill. The valuations of a Valuer-General's Department, such as is proposed to be set up by this Bill, should be use~ for local-authority assessments, compen­satiOn for the resumption of land evidence of values in courts of law, stamp a~d succes­sion duty assessments, advances by the Crown on mortgages, and land taxation, either State or Federal. That is a vital difference between the New South Wales and New Zealand Acts and the Bill before us, inasmuch as our Bill puts very undesirable limitations on the func­tions of the proposed department. In New South Wales and New Zealand the valuations of the Valuer-General's Department are used for all the purposes I have quoted whereas our ~ill limits its valu!l'tions in a ~andatory fashwn to local authorities and to State land tax. It also contains a proviso that makes it possible for the Valuer-General to make valua tions for _other purposes, if required, and, moreover, It makes it possible for this department to undertake private work. Per­hap_s th~t is ver;y doubtful wisdom. My com­plamt IS t)lat If a Valuation of Land Act is to be enacted in this State, it should create a department that will deal with all valuations, and will not be limited as it is p;·oposed, in a mandatory way to loc~l authori­ties and for State land tax. It will not be doing its job if it is confined to these two purposes'; it would be much better if the valuations of this department were usable for other purposes.

I propose quoting sections of the New Zealand and New South Wales Acts to show the. purposes for which the values created by their departments are used. In New Zealand in addition to rating purposes they are used by the Stamps Office for advances and inv.;st­ments on the mortgage of land by or on behalf of any of the Government depart­ments-such as the Post Office, Government Insurance Office, Public Trust Office, State Advances Office, the Commissioners of the Public Debt Sinking Fund Office, and such other offices and departments as the Governor­General by Order in Council from time to time directs.

The Secretary for Public Works: Do they take the improved value~

Mr. NICKLIN: They take both, and that is an advantage, as I shall prove during the course of my speech. The Act goes on to say that the valuations may be used by any such office or department as are prescribed by the Act und~r ·which such office or department is constituted and that the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly.

In New South Wales, the department's valuations are used for rating and taxation purposes by such bodies as shire councils, the municipal council of Sydney the shire municipalities, the Hunter Dist~ict Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage, and Drainage Board, and t~e Commissioners of Taxation. They are used for unimproved and improved value pur-

poses, by the Government Savings Bank of New South Wales and any other public office or department, and for unimproved annual values they are used for the purpose of the Fire Brigades Acts, and they include improve­ments under a long list of Acts dealing with matters concerning the improved and unimproved values of land.

Those departments deal with all land values, both improved and unimproved, and if a Valuation of Land Department is going to be of beneiit, if it is going to warrant the expense of its estab­lishment, it should deal with all values of land, instead of being confined to local authorities and State Land Tax Departments. On looking into this Bill I find that that principle is missing, and when we compare the measure with the New South \Vales and New Zealand Acts, ,,-hich have been tried and proved it is obvious that it should be included.

Our Bill, indeed, has many shortcomings. One principle it contains is plainly wrong. I refer to the principle of valuing leaseholds on a freehold or fee-simple basis. When we consider the lack of vital principles in this Bill and the fact that some of its provisions are definitely loaded in favour of the depart· ment against the landholder, and when we examine the Bill very elosely, as I have done, we find that it is almost impossible to amend it. satisfactorily without redrafting many of the clauses, and, therefore, I do not think it is right that it should come into effect immediately. In fact, it is very doubtful whether under war-time conditions we could establish this department, or, if we did, whether it could carry out its work. In view of these facts I think it would be much wiser if we made haste slowly and that the House should refer it to a select committee of the whole House who would later report to the Assembly. I therefore move the following amendment:-

'' Omit the words-' now read a second time'

and insert in lieu thereof the words-' referred to a select committee for inquiry ancl recommendations, sucll con\mittee to consist of Messrs. Bruce, Slessar, Devries, Collins, Turner, Muller, Luckins, Decker, and Nicklin. Such committee shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and shall furnish its report to Mr. Speaker for presentation to the House not later than 31 January, 1944.' ''

I move that amendment because I support the principle of uniformity of land valuations, and the Opposition are desirous of seeing a good Bill passed by this House, but think, after going into the Bill very, very closely, that it is impossible, without considerable redrafting, to bring about the desired end. That being so, the only alternative is to refer it to a committee of the whole House for later report to the House.

My reasons for moving the amendment may be summarised as follows:-

' '1. Desirable proVISions contained in the New Zealand and New South Wales

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OcTOBER.] Valuation of Land Bill. 969

Acts are omitted from this Bill. It would take 1vholesale amendment to make the necessary improvements. Consideration should be given to the question of valuation of improvements (New Zealand and New South "\Vales), Assessor Courts as in New Zealand, vacation of office of the Valuer· General under certain circumstances, such as conviction of indictable offence, bank­ruptcy, &c., as in other legislation where an appointment is made for a term of years, and other aspects of this legislation which require more consideration before committing the State to the establishment of a new department, costing £20,000 a year or nlore. If only unimproved values are to be given, is the added cost and inter­ference with functions of local authorities justified~

"2. The practicability (apart from the equity) of valuing pastoral and grazing properties on a freehold basis. How can it be ascertained what 'the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realise' when there have been so few or, in some dis­tricts, no sales of freehold properties of a similar nature.

'' 3. The whole Bill favours the depart­ment and requires recasting to give fairer treatment to landowners.

'' 4. Many owners are away on service or war employment and not able to object to new valuations which may be radically different from those made under present legislatim1.

'' 5 There is no need for hurry. It would probably be impossible to proceed with the establishment of this department until after the war."

I think those are ample reasons for the Opposition's amendment.

The principle of valuation is a very import­ant one in any legislation dealing with land. It is proposed in the Bill that the first valuation shall be made within seven years of the Act's coming into force, and that the valuation districts shall be separately proclaimed.

The definitions and implications of <'improved'' and ' 'unimproved'' have an important bearing on the proposed legisla­tion. The definition of ''unimproved value'' in our law is almost the same in meaning although different in wording as that in the New South vVales and New Zealand Acts, but in the Bill there are provisos that are not to be found in either the New South Wales or New Zealand Acts, and, what is more, those provisos do not in any way clarify the position but rather confuse the whole issue and also have the effect of load­ing the determinations of values very much in favour of the department and against the landholder. This is the definition in the New South Wales Act-

'' The unimproved value of land is the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and con­ditions as a bona-fide seller would require, assuming that the improvements, if any,

thereon or appertaining thereto, and made or acquired by the owner or his predecessor in title had not been made.''

The Secretary for Public Works: Now read ours.

Mr. NICKLIN: This is the definition in the New Zealand Act-

" 'Unimproved value' of any land means the sum which the owner's estate or interest therein, if unencumbered by any mortgage or other charge thereon, might be expected to realise at the time of valua­tion if offered for sale on such reasona blc terms and conditions as a bona-ficle seller might be expected to impose, and if no improvements (as hereinbefore defined) had been m·ade on the said land: ''

The Minister invited me to read the definition in the Bill. As I told him before, it is prac­tically the same as the two I have just read, although in slightly different language, but the catch is in the provisoes in our Bill, the first of which alone has the effect of nullify­ing the definition-

'' Provided that the unimproved value shall in no case be less than the sum that would be obtained by deducting the value of improvements from the improved value at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act:"

'l'hat proviso nullifies the definition of improvement and gives the department another string to its bow if it is not satisfied with the valuation arrived at. That is, if No. 1 valuation does not suit the department the more suitable one is adopted.

The Minister, when introducing the Bill, used as an excuse that the proviso was the same as was included in the Land Tax Act. We admit that it is, but that does not make it right. I suggest it is definitely wrong. One, of course, expects a taxing authority to protect itself and to ensure that what it misses on the swings it makes up on the roundabouts, but I should not expect the same principle to be included in a Bill of this kind which merely endeavours to set up a just and equitable method of valuing land. The Minister himself went to great pains to explain that this Bill was not a taxing Bill or setting up a taxing authority. If that is so, why include provisions that are in the Land Tax Act~

Very often the value of land is due to good management. The hon. member for Fassifern, when speaking on the initiatory stage, quoted an instance. He said that you could get two pieces of land equal in all respects; a good farmer would make the best of one, but a man who spent as much money on improve­ments as he did or even more would not work the second piece so successfully. Yet if the Valuer-General to be appointed under this Bill valued those two pieces of land on the basis set out in this proviso it would be found that the unimproved value of the land owned by the good farmer would be consid­erably higher than the value of the land that was not being worked to advantage. That is

970 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Land Bill.

how the proviso would operate detrimentally to the landowner, and a true valuation of the land, which this Bill seeks to achieve, would not be obtained.

Mr. Sievers, Valuer-General for New South Wales, has this to say on this point-

' 'The practice frequently followed of estimating the unimproved value of land by the deduction of an estimated value of the improvements from the estimated improved value applied to each individual property is to be avoided, leading to neces­sarily great inconsistency. This will be recognised if applied to any number of adjacent properties.''

That amplifies the point I have been making. We can very well realise the effect this prin­ciple will have in arriving at the unimproved value of land. The truth of this statement is recognised in this Bill, which specifically states that the value of a hotel licence shall be regarded as part of the improvements and, therefore, be subtracted from the improved value of the property. But why give only this one specific direction to the valuer when it is equally applicable to other kinds of improvements~ In fact, it will be found that the proviso I have just quoted, and the addi­tional proviso dealing with improved value, will contradict the definitions themselves. There is only one reason I can suggest for the inclusion of this proviso, and that is to ensure that the department gets the advan­tage whatever happens. It will be on the right side and the landholder will be on the wrong side.

One of the provisoes says the value of improvements shall in no case exceed the amount that should reasonably be involved in effecting improvements of a nature and efficiency equivalent to the existing improve­ments. With these provisoes included in the Bill, the effect will be to include the results of good management of the land, such as goodwill and greater productive capacity in the unimproved value. In other words, they penalise the owner of land for his efficiency and enterprise in the use of his land. Is that faid Unquestionably not. The correct way and the way that has been proved to be successful and effective and suitable for all purpos•es, is to use the plain, unvarnished definitions in the Acts in New South Wale3 and New Zealand. In fact, with the provisoes in our Bill, we might find the department involved in a very big law action.

I am going to quote the effect of a law action in New South Wales on this very question. I refer to the judgment of the Privy Council in Tooheys Limited versus the Valuer-General of New South Wales. That judgment states, inter alia-

" They (i.e., the improvements) are to be taken not only as non-existent, but as if they had never existed. It is, therefore, to approach the quostion from a completely wrong point of view to begin with a valua­tion which takes in the improYements and then proceed by means of subtraction of a sum arrived at by an independent valua­tion in order to find the required figure. ''

That is, of course, exactly what the pro­visoes do. If the department is not satisfied with the valuation arrived at by valuing unimproved land as if the improvements did not exist, it will value it by the subtraction method, and if the subtraction method gives the higher value, that is the value that will be applied to the land. Is that fair~ We are giving the Valuer-General a double­headed penny; whicheyer way it comes down he is the winner. That alone is sufficient reason for the action I have taken in moving that the Bill be referred to a committee of th·a whole House to go thoroughly into this matter to ensure good legislation and ensure equity to all parties concerned in the valua­tion of lands.

Further, as I said earlier, if we are going into this question of valuation of la11d by a Valuer-General's Department, it should deal with all valuations of land, not only those required by the local authorities and State Taxation Department, but those required by every other department of the Government as well. If we do that, we shall do the job properly, and not restrict it as we do in the Bill to two specific purposes. To do this we should have to deal not only with the unimproved value of the land; we should have to take into account the improved value of land also. The New South Wales Act, for instance, directs that the valuation rolls shall set forth, inter alia-

(o) The nature of the improvements on the land;

(d) The unimproved value of the land; (e) The improved value of the land; (f) The assessed annual value of the

land.

The New Zealand Act directs that the valua­tion rolls shall state-

(d) The nature and value of the improvements;

(e) The unimproved value of the land; (f) The capital value of the land.

The New South Wales and New Zealand rolls, therefore, are usable by other departments than local authorities and the State Taxation Department, but the Queensland rolls will give only the unimproved value, which is useful only for land taxation and local authority rating. Those are very serious deficiencies in this Bill.

On the initiatory stage, I emphasised that much of the success of this department would depend on who was selected for the position of Valuer-General.

It is a very important office, and the appointment is for a period. Usually in an appointment of this nature there a·re pro­visoes that in the event of the officer's being indicted for an offence, going bankrupt, and so on, he automatically forfeits his office. The Minister may suspend the Land Court judges and report them to Parlia­ment, and Parliament may then take action. The Bill should include pro­VlslOnS to deal with the Valuer-General more or less in the same way as we deal with

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OCTOBER.] Valuation of Land Bill. 971

Land Court judges. After all, the position is a very important one, and the holder must be above reproach. If any officer at any time abuses the privilege of his office, Par­liament should have power to deal with him. There is no such condition in the Bill.

'l'he maintenance of this department will be rather costly. In New South Wales and New Zealand, much of the cost of the con·es­ponding departments is recouped from the work they do. They do work not only for local authorities and taxation purposes, but for all other Government departments, aEd, ·consequently, these other departments are relieved of the expense of maintaining staffs Df valuers. If we create a costly department in this State, why make it a department that works only half time~ Why not make it a department that does a full job, recouping its costs by the work it does for other departments in relieving those other depart­ments of the expense of maintaining valuers to do their work.

I now come to what I think is the most objectionable feature of the Bill, i.e., the va1uing of leaseholds on a fee-simple basis. I have discussed this matter very fully with men who have been concerned with the valua­tion of land, and with holders of leases, and the unanimous opinion is that it is not prac­ticable to put the proposal into effect, alto­gether apart from any que<tion of its equity. It is, of course, inequitable, but we must consider also its practicability. All these gentlemen are of the opinion that it is not practicable. \Vhat is the position of many of our western and north-western areas~ The land is held under Crown leases, and has no unimproved value whatever. Many of the owners of these leases would sell them for less than the value of the improvements. What value on a fee-simple basis are you going to put on leasehold land of that kind~ The present system of valuing leaseholds has operated very well; therefore, why the neces­sity for alteration~ The valuation of these lands is determined by the Land Court when iixing rents, and it does not determine these rentals haphazardly. It goes into the matter ;·ery fully. It hears evidence and takes into account all the circumstances attached to the leases, such as the limited tenure, nnd so on. It then iixes a rental, which may be low if the value is low, or high if the value is high. The principle of arriving at the value that has operated up to the present is to multiply the annual rental so iixed by 20, and that system seems to have been very satisfactory to shire councils and the people who hold the leases.

Now let us consider the possibility of valuing these leases on a fee-simple basis. I contend that it is quite impossible in the far-western parts of our State to iix these values on a fee-simple basis, because there is no freehold land in the vicinity. There have been no sales of freehold land round about because there is no freehold land there to sell. You can see the immense job the department would have, Mr. Speaker, if it is going to value all these leasehold pro­perties that are hllld under various termin-

able leases throughout the State and with no freehold sales to guide them or no method of arriving at a fair basis for the fee­simple value of these lands. It will lead to innumerable appeals and a great deal of expense, not only for the la'ndholder, but also for the department, in contesting appeals.

There is another feature that must be borne in mind. What is the avowed policy oi' the Government in respect of freehold or fee-simple tenure~ Times without number we have had controversies in this House as to freehold and fee simple in which hon. members opposite have said that freehold and fee-simple tenures should be wiped out in Queensland. Yet here they are establishing a principle in this Bill of making it an obligation that these terminable leases shall be valued on a fee-simple basis. The Government have something to answer for in that respect. Why this sudden change of hearH There must be something behind this rotten principle that is involved in put­ting these lea'sehold properties on a fee­simple basis. The present method of valuing these lands is easy and simple. It gives satisfaction to all concerned. Why change this simple method to an involved one that is going to lead to no end of trouble, not only to the Valuer-General's Depart­ment, but also to the landholders them­selves~

I asked a gentleman who has had very wide experience in valuation of land through­out this State, and who has an intimate knowledge of the areas in which most of these leasehold properties are situated, to give me his opinion as to the practicability, apart from the equity, of valuing these leasehold properties on a fee-simple basis, and this is what he says-

' 'I am of opinion that it is not possible to accurately assess the value of any land for which the title is terminable at the end of a limited time in terms of free­hold. A mere assumption that an area of land is freehold for valuation purposes when, in fact, it is not, will not supply more than an erroneous basis for a con­clusion as to value. If a leasehold be assumed to be fee-simple without regard to such encumbrances as to rental, restric­tions, resumptions, and limitation as to value of improvements, then it would be equally reasonable to contend that a per­son's equity in a freehold was not affected by a mortgage. In either case, all that an owner possesses is the equity (if any). In Central and North-West Queensland large areas of land exist which never can possess a fee-simple value. Selectors of these lands risk large outlays on them because they are not bound to continue ownership if that becomes unprofitable and because such outlays as they make are expected to be recovered in the form of relief in drought time. Tenancy or occu­pancy of this type of country is inter­mittent and temporary, and no element of value resides in it that rould be assessed in terms of freehold. i '

972 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Lo,nd Bill.

I think all hon. members must agree that that is a: very fair statement of the posi­tion. It is extremely diffieult to arrive at a fee-simple value of lands that have ~ . ter­minable title, many of whic_h, as the Mmister knows, are used only as relief country.

Mr. Dunstan: They would still have a perioll of unimproved values.

Mr. NICKLIN: I do not know whether they would, but how can there be a fee­simple basis when there is no freehold coun­try in the vicinity with which to comp~re them~ I am forecasting that there are gomg to be very many headaches in arrivi.ng . at that basis, altogether apart from the JUStice of the case. I protest emphatically against this phase of the Bill. It is unfair to the holders of these lands, and there must be some motive behind the change it is proposed to make from the present method of valuing these lands, because it has been very satis­factory to all concerned.

Mr. Healy: What brought about your change within the last two weeksf You gave this Bill your benediction.

Mr. NICKLIN: If the hon. member reads my remarks he will see that I said that I agreed with the principle of uniform values of land and I still do, but he will. also read that I ;eserved my comments until I had fully examined the Bill. I am now making my comments after thoroughly going into the provisions of the Bill. I am still an ad va­cate of the uniform valuation of land, as is evidenced by the fact that we do not want to throw the Bill out but want to improve it. We have put a: suggestion to the Minister and his Government that we feel will bring about the necessary improvement to make this legislation valuable, workable, and equal to the legislation of New South Wales and New Zealand.

The Secretary for Labour and ment: What type of leasehold object to having valued on the basis~

Employ· do you freehold

Mr. NICKLIN: Here are some of them­preferential pastoral lease, pastoral develop­ment lease, grazing homestead lease, grazing farm lease, and so on. These leases have no capital value worth valuing on a fee-simple basis. At the present time these leases are valued on the basis of 20 times the annual rent, w;hich is quite a fair and equitable method of valuation.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Many local authorities do not agree with you there.

:Mr. NICKLIN: I am not concerned whether local authorities agree with me or not. I am viewing the matter from the standpoint of equity as a principle. Every­body admits that it is diffic~lt to val.ue land under this tenure on a fee-simple basis.

Now let me turn to some of the other objectionable features of the Bill, those that are loaded against the landlord in favour of the department. I refer first of all ~o the objection by the appellant to the notiCe of valuation. He can be called upon to supply

all the information the department requires, whereas the Crown witnesses are not com­pelled to produce documentary or other evidence of material value to the court. The appellant can be called upon to disclose all the information, and in default be liable to a penalty. This lopsided and unfair proposal should be resisted, and I am strongly resist­ing it now. The parties to the appeal should go before the court on a fair and equal basis, and not on the basis of having everything loaded against the appellant in favour of the department.

Further on, in the clause, dealing with the grounds of objection to the notice of valua­tion, exactly t.he same principle appears. There it is set out that the appellant must set out in writing the full details of hi~> entire case to the Valuer-General. He must give everything away, but the Valuer-General need not disclose anything w;ha tever to the appellant until he goes into court to fight the case. There is a much better system in New South Wales where all the grounds are clearly set out, and all the appellant has to do is to intimate the ground that he takes in support of his objection to the notice of valuation. He is not required to give away all the details of his case, and he is certainly not required, as .he is here, to supply his enemy with ammunition so that his enemy may shoot him. That is the feature of the Bill to whieh I strongly object.

In New South Wales the objections the appellant may take are set out under six clear headings, as follows:-

(1) That the values assigned are too high or too low;

(2) That t,he interests held by various persons in the land have not been correctly apportioned;

(3) That the apportionment of the valua­tions is not correct;

( 4) That th·e lands which ,ghould be included in one valuation have been valued separately;

(5) That lands which should be valued separately have been included in one valua­tion; and

(6) That the person named in t;he notice is not the lessee or owner of the land.

Those grounds of objection should be enough, but the Bill provides that the appellant shall give away everything to the department. What an easy job it makes for the depart­ment in fighting the appeal!

The Secretary for Public Lands: Many of the headings of objection in t;he New South Wales Act are superfluous.

Mr. NICKLIN: I question whether they are, and even if they are, that is beside the point. At least they give the appellant a chance in fighting his case, but the Bill means that the appellant must load the gun and hand it to the other fello>~ so that he may shoot him. That is exactly what it menns. The Secretary for Public Lands snys that some of the grounds of objection in New South \Vales are not necessary. -Which one,

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OCTOBER.] Valuation of Land Bill. 973

for instance, is not necessary~ Is this one unnecessary, ''That the interests held by various persons in the land have not been correctly apportioned''~ ·

The Secretary for Public Lands: I should not say that one.

M. NICKLIN: Then is it this one, " That lands which should be included in one valua­tion have been valued separately"?

The Secretary for Public Lands: It might be a typographical error.

Mr. NICKLIN: I am trying to find out specifically from the Minister which one he really thinks is unnecessary.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Read the next one.

l\Ir. NICKLIN: Here it is, " That lands which should be valued separately have been included in one valuation"? Is that one all right~

There is another matter respecting valua­tions that must be dealt with definitely by this House. That is the matter of appeals. Under this Bill, valuations up to £1,000 can be appealed against by the owner to the Magistrates Court, and the decision of the magistrate is final. The appellant has no right of appeal. That is a bad principle to include in any Bill. All should have the right of appeal. That principle is not general in other Acts that I know of.

The Attorney-General: The appeal to the magistrate is an appeal in itself.

Mr. NICKLIN: Is that the sort of legis­lation the hon. gentleman favours-denying to persons the right of appeal~

The Attorney-General: He has the right of appeal.

l\Ir. NICKLIN: That is another point. Hon. members opposite always contend that they stand up for the small man, and that they fight for the under-dog, and for his Tights, yet in this Bill they are depriving the owner of land valued up to £1,000 the right of appeal from the decision of a magistrate, although in the same Bill they make provision for appeals from the Land Court to the Land Appeal Court with respect to land valued at over £1,000. They deprive the small land­owner of the right of appeal that the big man enjoys.

The Attorney-General: That is not right.

Mr. NICKLIN: It is right.

The Attorney-General: It is not.

Mr. NICKLIN: I should not like to argue with the Attorney-General on a point of law -(laughter)-but I will definitely argue with him as to what this Bill provides. This Bill says-I say it without fear of contradiction -that there shall be no right of appeal from the magistrate to the Land Court with respect to lands up to £1,000.

Tile Attorney-General: An owner with land up to £1,000 can appeal to a magistrate.

Mr. NICKLIN: He has no right of appeal from the magistrate's decision.

The Attorney-General: That is his appeal.

Mr. NICKLIN: He has an appeal in the first instance to the Magistrates Court but no right of appeal from that court as is provided with respect to land of a higher value.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Your complaint is really that there is too much opportunity to appeal.

l\Ir. NICKLIN: That is not my complaint at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!

Mr. NICKLIN: My complaint is that there should be the right of appeal from the Magistrates Court, just as there is from the Land Court. Why deny the people the right of appeal~ Such a provision is not contained in any comparable Acts on our statute-book. We find that under the Local Government Act an owner has the right of appeal from a decision in the Magistrates Court to the Supreme Court, irrespective of the amount involved, and that costs are allowed.

Mr. Dunstan: That is his appeal against the valuation.

Mr. NICKLIN: No. He gets the right of appeal to one court and he is then wiped off if his property is not valued at over £1,000. Under the Land Tax Acts a taxpayer can appeal to the Land Court and Land Appeal Court, irrespective of the amount involved, and costs are allowed. The right of appeal is not denied in that instance. Under the New South Wales Act there is the right of appeal to the Land Valuation Court presided over by a judge. There is no limit to the amount involved, and the presiding justice can allow costs.

The Attorney-General: Do you want to take his right away from the magistratef

Mr. NICKLIN: Why should we deny any section of landowners the right of appeal against a decision given in the Magistrates Court~ The principle is wrong; it is a bad principle to include in any legislation, and a principle that will not be included with the consent of the Opposition. It is questionable, too, whether the Magistrates Court is the right eourt to hear appeals against land valuations. Hon. members who may have had experience in appeal cases as to land valuations know what happens sometimes in the Magistrates Court. Ther·e may be hundreds of appeals and the magistrate, anxious to get them through, rushes them through one after the other, with the result that appellants do not get a fair deal.

The Attorney-General: That is a very unkind statement to make-that they do not get a fair deal in the Magistrates Court.

Mr. NICKLIN: I am not suggesting any­thing against the probity of magistrates, but

'974 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Land Bill.

decisions are given there that lead to other appeals and unnecessary expense. Very often the magistrate has not the knowledge or time to deal with these appeals.

The Attorney-General: You are casting a grave reflection on magistrates.

Mr. NICKLIN: I am not making any reflection against magistrates; I am merely stating a fact.

In New Zealand the principle of appeal is allowed. The appellant may go to the Assessment Court, subject to appeal on a point of law to the Supreme Court. The Assessment Court consists of a president, who must be a barrister or solicitor, an assessor appointed by the Governor in Council for each district, and an assessor appointed by the local authority concerned. There is an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of that body.

The Secretary for Public Lands: You would not suggest the time of the Supreme Court should be taken up with the hearing 'Of land appealsW

Mr. NICI{LIN: I am not suggesting that at all. We have here a Land Court which is eminently suitable to deal with appeals and it would be wrong to go to any other court. What I am concerned to see is that the right of appeal against the decision of the Magis­trates Court is given to the appellant on pro­perty up to a value of £1,000, the same as the right is given to the owner of property of over £1,000.

In regard to the other point I raised, many owners of leasehold property are at present on war service. We find in the Minister's report of the department that the department has waived rents in order to give concessions to the boys on active service who are finan­dally not well off, but there is a provision in the Bill that immediately it is passed, even before the Valuer-General goes into a parti­cular district, he can vary the values of certain land; and it may be he will begin straightaway on these leaseholds. As these men are away fighting for their country they will not be here to fight their appeals and stand up for their rights.

The Secretary for Public Lands: That is not likely to happen.

lUr. NICKLIN: I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that it is not likely to happen, but it could happen, as the provision is there. That is a thing we have to guard against.

I think I have said sufficient at this stage to show that this Bill has very many undesir­able features-features that should be amended by this Assembly; and as there is no violent hurry to put this Bill on the statute-book, why rush it through~ Why not do as suggested by the amendment-submit the Bill to a select committee of this House for close examination, a committee that will take all relevant evidence and discuss the matter with Governmental officers who will be concerned and then report back to this House with a Bill that will meet with unanimous

approval and that will be a eredit to the Legislature of Queensland, instead of a Bill that if passed will be a blot on itf The Bill is very much a committee one and should be dealt with by a select committee as I have proposed.

Mr. lliULLER (Fassifern) (12.28 p.m.): I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and in doing so I wish to clear up the point made by the Secretary for Public Works when he said that there was a difference in the tone of the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and myself during the initiatory stage and to-day. I want to say right here that we do not object to the principle of uniform valuation, but we do object to the method that is being employed to bring that about. If there were any difference in the tone of the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition and myself, I feel sure the Minister should be able to understand that difference. The Minis­ter has a very happy knack of making short speeches on the initiation stage of any Bill; as a matter of fact, he likes to keep you guessing and tell you as little about a Bill as he possibly can. The inkling we had of the Bill was so slight that one had to guess a good deal as to what it contained. I was rather surprised this morning, too, at the attitude the Minister adopted in the early part of his speech. I understood that the Standing Orders provided that no hon. mem­ber had the right during the current session to quote from '' Hansard'' a debate of that session.

The Secretary for Public Works: I queJted from notes taken of your speech and not from '' Hansard. ''

lUr. MULLER: The Minister explains that he did not quote from "Hansard." It was a true report of it anyhow and I thought it vvas a complete extract from '' Hansard,'' which is the same thing.

The Secretary for Public Works: I had an officer taking shorthand notes.

Mr. MULLER: I am not objecting, because I have the greatest appreciation of the fair-minded way, Mr. Speaker, in which you conduct--

llir. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. mem­ber is reflecting on the Chair. I watched the Minister closely when he made his second­reading speech.

lllr. lliULLER: There is nothing further from my mind. I appreciate your fairness in the chair-you know that. I felt the Minister was not justified in quoting in the way he did.

Perhaps if I had any grievance I had my rights as an hon. member of the House to object at the time the statements were being made. I trust that you will put me right, Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong when I say that I believe the Minister was quite wrong in bringing my private business onto the floor of this House.

The Secretary for Public Works: You brought it up yourself.

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OcTOBER.] Valuation of Land Bill. 97.:P

Mr. MULLER: Yes, I appreciate that. Again, I do not mind, but I believe that had I objected at the time I could have asked the Minister to refrain from disclosing my private business in this House.

Tile Secretary for Public Works: That is quoted in "Hansard."

Mr. ~fULLER: I still stand by what I said at that stage of the Bill, but, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is cricket for any Minister to quote business of any private member in this House.

Tile Secretary for Public Works: That is part of your speech. I had to reply to your statement.

~Ir. MULLER: Whether it is or is not my statement the point is that I understand land- and income-tax returns are absolutely private between the department concerned and the individual. The statement the Minister made in this House this morning he might just as well have made to the ''Courier-Mail.'' He told the House what sections of my actual land-tax returns were, what was the opinion of the valuers who were sent out to inspect my land, and the amount of the improved values. If that is so, then I wish to know what is the meaning of the regulations that provide that this business must be absolutely private~

Tile Secretary for Public Works: You quoted figures in regard to these matters that were incorrect and I was able to correct them.

~Ir. MULLER: I am not disputing the correctness of those figures. The point there is that that in itself makes the thing ever so much worse.

Tile Secretary for Public Lands: Actu­ally you quoted your own personal case.

Mr. MULLER: I did quote my own case. Perhaps I should bear some of the blame for introducing the question, but the point about it is that as the Minister told us so little about the Bill we had to guess a good deal as to what was contained in it.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Per­haps you are dense and do not understand it.

lUr. MULLER: Perhaps I am just about as dense as the hon. gentleman. But there is this to be said-that I am very happy to be able to say to-day that I was not far wrong. My summing up of the Bill, on the vague explanation given us by the Minister, was quite good, considering that we knew so little about it. In fairness to myself I must state that when the Minister made that state­ment a thought passed through my mind that the Bill looked dangerous, and I immediately quoted my own case. I must admit that I cannot give you the actual figures from my own land-tax return or any other documents until I have time to look them up, but if anyone examined my return and the gtate­ment made by the Minister to-day he would find the statement I made at random on that occasion was not far wrong. The point I was

trying to make on the initiatory stage of the Bill was not to introduce my own private business into the discussion, but to show the anomalous position the Bill would create if passed in its present form. I desired to show how valuers could come on to a property from time to time and alter existing values. I have not the exact dates nor the exact figures with me, but I must tell the House that they were not far wrong.

The Minister has slightly misconstrued the whole position, if we are to bring in my own private business, which I do not think is right. I have to put the Minister and this House right. I will go back to somewhere about 1926-again I speak at random, as I cannot give now the actual year. The Minister gave the House this morning the total valuations of my property. Perhaps his statement was right, but the point was somewhat misconstrued because he was deal­ing with total valuations. My land is in several portions and many changes take place in 15 or 16 years. Land was bought and sold several times. I could not give the House the actual portions of the land and the values, but the values did change. When I spoke on the introduction of this Bill I was referring to one parcel of land and not to my total holding at all. I referred to one parcel of land as to which the effect was as I said. I could not give you the exact amount in pounds, shillings, and pence until I looked it up, but I shall have these figures later. The point I was trying to emphasise on the previous occasion was that values could be upset from time to time, and they were upset.

I stated that I placed a certain value on one piece of land. The Land Tax Depart­ment thought that it was too low. An inspec­tion followed, and the officer who made the inspection upheld my valuation; in fact, he reduced it by £5. But he did not stay there. He went on to other lands that had been valued twice previously, and the value of one of those portions was increased to something like £500. I am not saying that that figure is accurate because I have not got the records with me at the moment. Had I the remotest idea of what the Minister was going to say I might have been in a position to give authentic figures, but I disliked the sugges­tion made by the Minister that I am using this Chamber for the purpose of exaggerating one case in order to build up an argument for the amendment. Nothing is further from my mind. What I wish to point out is that these Crown valuers have almost unlimited power. They hm·e authority to go on one's property, and, irrespective of the improve­ments that have been carried out since the previous inspection, they increase the value. It is wrong to send a man from Brisbane or anywhere else who does not know local conditions. On at least two occasions this property had been properly poisoned, cleaned, fenced, :md ditcheil, and water had been pro­vided. It looked in perfect order when the last man came along, but had he seen it ·when his two colleagues inspected it 10 or 12 years before it would have been a horse of another colour.

'976 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Land Bill.

The Opposition contend that the effects of this Bill are so far-reaching that it should be properly considered. After listening to the Leader of the Opposition this morning, hon. members should be convinced of that. I thought the Secretary for Public Works was piloting this Bill through, and I take it that that being so he has made a close study {)f it, but the Secretary for Public Lands stated by way of interjection that he has not even read the Bill. It is a serious matter to pass a Bill as this with all the effects it will have on the people of Queensland when <Cabinet Ministers, let alone other mem­bers of the Government, have not studied its -contents.

We are not asking for a great deal in this amendment. We are only asking that before the Bill is placed on the statute-book it be considered more carefully than the Government propose and that a select com­mittee-with qualified officers of the Crown to advise it if the Government wish it that way-go into the matter. We are offering to help the Government on this occasion with the practical knowledge of hon. members on this side of the Chamber in order that the Bill might be properly drafted before. it is placed on the statute-book. There 1s no great need to rush this measure through, considering that we are going through war conditions. In his first-reading speech the Minister admitted that it might take seven years before the provisions of the Bill began to apply. That being so, there is no urgency about it now. We do not object to the prin­ciple of uniform valuation, and we do not object to the expense of setting up the depart­ment. We are not so shortsighted as to believe that expense is the only consideration. It is a consideration, of course, but we can· not close our eyes to the fact that it is going to cost a considerable sum of money to estab­lish this department and to obtain the necessary officers. It will be difficult to say what the cost will be, but if it is warranted >Ye have no objection to it.

Let us examine the Bill and see what it contains. Ji'irst of all it appears to me that we must amend the Local Government Act so far as valuations are concerned. The Bill is designed to value land for land-tax, local­authority, and other purposes. The word ''other'' is so wide that it could be applied to almost anything, and we should be very careful about using it. \Vhere is the need for a valuation under this Bill for land-tax purposes~ At the present time the Land Tax Department has its own valuers. These men are sent out to do valuing for the depart­ment if it is not satisfied to accept the land­holder's valuation.

Then is there any need for the Bill from the point of Yiew of the local authorities? They have their own machinery. Under the Local Government Act they have power to appoint valuers from time to time and the landholder has a right to challenge the valua­tion placed on his property. He has the same right as the Government propose to give him under the Bill, of an appeal to 11. stipendiary magistrate. The Bill does not

alter or improve the law there very much, and so there is no great hurry for the Bill.

One of the purposes of the Bill is to enable leasehold land to be valued on a fee-simple or freehold basis. I wonder if the Minister or other members of the Cabinet, or the members of the Government have con­sidered that point so as to understand just how difficult it is. The Leader of the Opposition devoted a good deal of his time to the explanation of the problems that might arise in valuing leaseholds, and the Secretary for Public Lands questioned one or two of his statements. However, I should like to remind the House of how complicated the position really is. Perhaps at this stage it is advisable to give hon. members this clear description of holdings that are now to be valued on a fee-simple basis-

Pastoral Lease-A lease for a maximum term of 30 years, of a large area of grazing land not suitable for immediate closer settlement. It may be subject to specified conditions, such as, rabbit· or marsupial­proof fencing, ring-barking, destruction of noxious plants, or other conditions. Lease is subject to reappraisement of rent afteT each 10 years of the term.

Preferential Pastoral Lease-As above, but the lessee must not hold more than a stated area of land. Priority is given to an applicant who undertakes to reside personally on the holding during the first seven years of the term.

Pastoral Development Lease-Same, but subject to special conditions as to improve­ments to be effected.

Grazing Homestead Lease-A lease, for a maximum term of 28 years and a maxi­mum area of 60,000 acres, of grazing land suitable for closer settlement. Subject to personal residence for first five years and to reappraisement of rent after each period of seven years of the term of the lease. Also subject to fencing conditions.

Grazing Farm Lease-Same as grazing homestead lease, except that <there is no condition of personal residence.

Development Grazing Homestead Lease­Same as grazing homestead lease, but subject to special conditions of develop­ment and lease may be up to 40 years.

Development Grazing Farm _Lease-Sm_ne as grazing farm lease, but subJect to speCial conditions of development, and lease may be up to 40 years.

Any of the above leases may be made subject to conditions of rabbit· or marsupial· proof fencing or other improvements or destruction of pests, &c., as specified in the opening notification. How can they be treated therefore, as freehold~ Hon. mem· bers c~n see the complications surrounding this class of tenure. Can they not readily see that it will be exceedingly difficult to value them on a freehold basis~ These leases may terminate at any time and all kinds of things might happen.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Are there any advantages in valuing on a free­hold basisf

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OCTOBER.] Valuation of Land !1il:t. 977

Mr. MULLER: The hon. gentleman says that there are, but I say that there are not. There is not the slightest doubt that the one object of the Bill, and the one only, is to get additional rent. No-one can tell me that it is not the sole purpose of the Bill to get more revenue by way of land taxation.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Pas­toral leaseholds are not subject, to land taxation.

~Ir. lUULLER: I am coming to that point. When this legislative machinery is properly established, the valuation of the land will be increased so as to bring land not at present within the realms of taxation into that category. I make that definite statement nD"I'v, and I ask hon. members to mark my words. These lands will be increased in value so as to make them liable for land taxation. The Minister wants to know if there are any advantages in valuing lease­holds on a freehold basis. In reply, I want to tell him first of all that the Government cannot expect to have it both ways. First of all, they obtain a revenue from: the leaseholder by way of rent; do they expect to be able to go back to him and obtain further revenue from him by way of land tax? The Bill does not specifically say that land tax cannot be imposed on the lease­holder, but the power to do it is there, and it looks mighty dangerous.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Tell us how you think the leaseholder will be affected by the application of a system of valuing land on a freehold basis.

Mr. lliULLER: It will certainly increase the value.

The Secretary for Public Lands: And it might reduce it.

}lr. :iliULLER: I appreciate that inter­jection. At the present time the land is valued on the basis of 20 times the annual rent. My point is that the Government may think that 20 times the annual rent is not enouo-h and so they will increase the valna­tion,"w'hich will have the effect of lifting the valuation to 40 times the annual rent.

The Secretary for Public Lands: That is for the purpose of getting Tevenue for the local authority, not for the Government.

j}Ir. JUULLER: It will apply to the 'Government, too. The Government are not worried about the local authmities on this occasion. It is all very fine to put forward the argument that it is in favour of the local authorities. The Secretary for Public r~ands has endeavoured to argue that it is done to benefit the local authorities, but I want to tell him that the Government are more conceTned about incTeasing the balance in the Consolidated Revenue Account. I think we shall find in a very shoTt space of time that that is going to happen.

Another chief objection I have to the Bill is the divided contTol that is going to follow

its enactment. At the moment, appeals against local authority valuations aTe decided by a police magistrate. Under this Bill he will continue to have that power on valuations up to £1,000, but over that amount the appeal will be to the Land Comt. It is necessary to bring about some improvement in that respect. That is one reason for ouT amend­ment. I am of opinion that the stipendiaTy magistrate is not a competent person to adju­dicate in matters of this kind. He is n.c;t trained in these matters. Hon. meilllbeTs might argue that after all he only decides on the evidence submitted, but in order that any person can give a sound judgment in these matters ;he must possess some practical knowledge of land, and what land of a given quality will pToduce. In oTdeT to back up that statement I might say we have known of cases in which the stipendiaTy magistrate has gone out into the district and made an inspection of the land. I agree with the Government that you do requiTe some tdbunal to value the land, but let that be an inde­pendent tTibunal. I suggest that you estab­lish several of these Land CoUTts, perhaps one in each district. Each should be pTesided oveT by a judge, and the remaining membeTs of the bench should be officers of the Land Court.

The Secretary for Public Lands: How many judges do you think you would want~

Mr. MULLER: It is not necessary for one judge to he appointed to a specific dis­trict for all time, as one judge may be able to pTeside over sittings of an appeal courl in two or three districts. The point is, if you had men with some practical knowledge the results would be much better than under the suggested system. It would be muc.h preferable to the present system.

Another great objection I have to the Bill is that it is under the control of officeTs of the Crown from beginning to end. I inter­jected when the Minister was speaking that there was no independent authority at all. First of all, the department will be dh-ectly under the control of the Crown. The Valuer­General naturally will be a Crown officer. When an owner appeals he will appeal to a stipendiary magistmte, OT the Land Court. TheTefore, you have the Crown from beginning to end. The Leader of the Opposition was perfectly justified in saying that the Bill leans heavily in favour of the Government, and in no way whatsoever in the diTection of the landholder. The land holder's Tedress is practically nil. We become very disappointed on analysing the Bill. The debate last night centred round the Prices Commissioner. The authority this Bill pTOposes to establish will be on a similar basis to him. Both will be officeTs of the Crown. A number of people can be excused for assuming that they are directed by the Crown. The assumption is that these officeTs would be in exactly the same class as the PTices CommissioneT. In the various States of the Commonwealth experience has shown, and shown very clearly, that schemes of this kind always sway in favour of the political party in power at the time. I could give a number of instances

978 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Land Bill.

if time permitted in support of my state­ment. Take New Zealand, the Commonwealth of Australia, or, if you like, Queensland itself. No-one can get away from the fact that decisions and variations made from time to time by Prices Commissioners generally are in consonance with the policy of the Govern­ment in power at the time. I say that without reflecting on any particulal' Government. We :find that the methods of economic stabilisation in use to-clay are without exception the policy of the Government of the day. The Govern· ment, therefore, will influence this new depart­ment ·which will be a Crown authority from beginning to end. That is one of the great weaknesses of the Bill.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Your argument breaks down because the Lancl Appeal Court is the ultimate deciding factor.

Mr. MULLER: I know it is, but look at the strings to that appeal. The hon. gentle­man ·has directed attention to the most con­tentious part of the Bill. :B"irst of all, the appellant's interest is stifled under this Bill from beginning to end. It is a weakness I have mentioned before. The officers con­cerned in these appeals are under the juris­cliction of the Crown. The appellant has practically no power of appeal. He must first state his case, and he cannot vary it. The Valuer-General, on the other hand, can shift his ground from time to time. The Bill says so. Then only 30 days are allowed for an appellant to lodge an appeal, which is not sufficient.

The holder of a parcel of land-there is no such thing as an owner; you can only describe them as holders, whether the land is freehvld or leasehold-may not be at his holding when the announcement is made, and he may not have the opportunity to lodge the appeal inside 30 days, and he has to state his grounds when he lodges his appeal. The valuer has unlimited power. He has the right to split a parcel of land into portions without any survey. Take a block of 500 acres of land; he might say 100 is choice land and another 100 acres is valued at so much and so on-splitting it into five differ­ent blocks. After all, that is only an estimate; there is no survey at all. He is not supposed to put this in writing and he is not supposed to supply documentary evi­dence to the court when an appeal is lodged; yet an appellant has to place documentary evideme before the court.

Tlte Secretary for Public Lands: Which court~

lUr. MULLER: Before the appeal court.

The Secretary for Public Lands: So will the Valuer-General have to submit his to the Land Court.

lUr. :fi'IULLER: He has not to do anything of the kind; the Bill cloes not say so, and that is why we say it is ill-conceived. The whole of the responsibility of supplying the necessary evidence is thrown on the appellant, and no responsibility is thrown on the Crown. As I said a moment ago, the Crown Valuer­General is not obliged in any vYay to stick

to the :first value he places upon the land. The serious part of it-and the part that would intimidate any person-is that if the court's decision is slightly on the side of the Valuer-General the appellant has to pay the expenses. Let me put it more clearly. Supposing the value placed on a block of land by the Valuer-General is £2,000, and an objection is lodged and the matter comes before the Land Court and the Land Court decides it is worth £1,600, the appellant will have to pay the costs. '!.'hat is wrong-it is as wrong as it can be.

The Secretary for Public Lands: What about the reverse position? In that case the Crown would have to pay the expenses.

Mr. MULLER: I argue that this question of costs should be left to the court and should not be laid down in the Bill. If the evidence offered by the appellant is con­sidered by the court to be frivolous and unjustified the court should have the right to award costs as it does to-day in other cases, but the Bill lays it down that if the :final valuation is closer to the valuation of the Valuer-General than it is to that of the appellant, the appellant must pay the costs.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Parlia­ment is entitled to lay down a principle.

Mr. MULLER: The point I am concerned about is: can you expect anyone to appeal against a decision on this ground~ As the Leader vf the Opposition says, whichever way you look at it the Bill provides the Minister with a gun to shoot the appellant. The thing is quite unfair. If it is right that costs should be awarded against the appel­lant in certain circumstances it is equally right that costs should be awarded against the Crown in similar circumstances. If that is not done no-one will be game to appeal. That takes us back to mv own case. When my valuations were sent" in they were con­siderably higher than the local-authority valuations and I felt that it \Vas a question of appeal; but I was not game to appeal, because I knew the gun was loaded against me before I started and I could not afford to appeal nor could other people. The Bill is so contentious that we feel that before a decision is made it ought to have greater consideration. I believe if hon. members on the Government side of the House examined this Bill as carefully as they should have done, and got a little legal advice-after all, it becomes a legal matter-they would not come into this House and endeavour to shove this Bill clown the throats of the people. The effect is going to be tremendous. If the time has arrived vvhen the method of land valuations should be altered, we should do something on business lines and on fair lines. I can only say that the whole thing is so absurd that it is going to do untolcl harm, and will not be an improvement at all. As far as the city is concerned, I understood the Minister to say that variations existed as to suburban properties. Is it any justifi­cation for the Bill that things are not as they should be in the city area~

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OCTOBER.) Valuation of Land Bill. 979

As a means of obtaining uniformity in land taxation the Premiers' Conference in 1915 decided on a system of this kind. But although 26 or 27 years have passed, only one State, New South Wales, has actually introduced the plan. At the moment we have as much uniformity in land taxation as we shall have if the provisions of this Bill are put into operation. Experience proves that it is absolutely impossible to arrive at uniformity. Irrespective of the qnalifications valuers have, their difficulty is ever so much greater when they are work­ing in districts with which they are not con­versant. That has been proved time and again. Local-governing bodies have made a very good job of it. In fact, under exist­ing provisions they have powers that meet the position remarkably well. I have said this previously, but it will bear repetition. The Land Tax Department has the powers, it requires. It has officers who can be sent to any district to make an inspection of the land and reassess it at any time. One of the chief objections to the valuations made by people who are not conversa'nt with the district or the industries therein arises as to the value placed on the improvements on a property. I have been on the land vir­tually all my life, and I defy anyone to assess the values of different parts of land accurately with complete disregard to the improvements on them. Improvements make a: wonderful difference to the appearance of a piece of land, and there are so many different ways in which they can be brought about. It is not only a question of clearing a property of weeds and that kind of thing, but of dressing the land in such a way that the productivity of it is ever so much greater than it is naturally. I have had experience of yaluers working on behalf of the Rail­way Department in connection with the resumptions, and it will be found that in almost every case they based their values Dn what the land would actually produce when they valued it. After all, if land is worth what it will produce as a result of improvements, once you get a decision of that kind you cannot help feeling that this ,question of uniformity is very easy to talk about, but difficult to apply in practice. A number of people may think they have grasped the idea, but when it comes to put­ting it into practice at any great cost it is another matter.

Of course, one cannot blame people for assuming that the State is intervening in this way for only one purpose, that is, the increasing of rentals. There is no need for the Bill. The local authorities already have the necessary machinery, and as for the city, I understand the Brisbane Citv Council has established a City Valuer's Department of its own, and if it is not properly used or used to the greatest possible extent, it has the power to bring about complete uniformity if it so wishes. However, up to the present it has not, and the assumption is that it bas not been competent to do so.

Another objection to the Bill is that the Commonwealth Government is not likley to accept State valuations. Another is to the ,centralised control it will bring about. We

have had this Government objecting to con­trol from Canberra. We object to direc­tions given from time to time by the Corn· monwealth Government, and similarly coun­try people object to Brisbane control. We hear a great deal about decentralisation, but this Bill will not bring it about.

Summing up, I would point out that a chief and real objection we have to the Bill is that it is loaded against landholders. It is under the control of the State right from the beginning to the end, right from the Valuer-General to the appeal, that is, if the landholder decides to appeal.

I was rather impressed last night when I heard the Secretary for Labour and Employ­ment talking about price adjustments. He said that he felt the time had arrived when the only real solution of the problem was to appoint independent tribunals to deal with these matters. Matters connected with adjustments of land values are somewhat similar to price adjustments and the Crown has only to look at what has happened in price-fixing to perceive the dangers that lie ahead of the Bill. We should have an inde­pendent body to deal with these details con­nected with land valuation. I have no objec­tion to the appointment of valuers if the Government intend to press the Bill, but they should not be the final arbiters. Under this measure the landholder has virtually no redress. Hs is in constant fear that if he appeals costs will be awarded against him, and I should say that in at least 99 per cent. of the cases, the costs will be awarded against the appellant. It cannot be otherwise, because even though reductions may be granted, as a general rule they are so small that they do not affect costs.

In conclusion, let me say that I believe that the people on the land are doing a wonderful job and they should be encouraged to stay there. From time to time we have heard hon. members on the Government side, those who represent country electorates in particular, urging the necessity for encouraging people to go on the land and stay there. After all, the man on the land produces the food of the nation, in fact, everything that we need. That being so, and in view of the many taxes and difficulties that he now bears, it is quite wrong to try to extract more money from him. Not only has he to contend with high taxation already, but droughts, flood, and pests are a constant worry to him. Tax his profits if you must, but do not increase land taxation, and as I feel that the Bill in its present form will tend to do that, I cannot say other than that it is unjustified.

Mr. JESSON (Kennedy) (2.25 p.m.): I oppose the amendment. It is not remarkable that the Leader of the Opposition should move an amendment, but it is something new to find him seeking to take from the Govern­ment the prerogative of saying who shall be appointed to this committee. With all due respect to those hon. members on the Govern­ment side who have been suggested as members of this committee, I must say that I think the Leader of the Opposition is rather pre· sumptuous in telling the Government whom

980 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Land Bill.

they should appoint. If the amendment had read that a select committee be appointed by the Government, perhaps there might have been something in it.

Mr. Edwards: Are you jealous about it?

llJr, JESSON: Not at all. I am just thinking how stupid the Opposition are. There is not a jealous bone in my breast. I am looking at this matter from the logical point of view.

When we analyse the position, who is rais­ing the opposition to the Bill? I believe that there have been no protests from the local authorities about it.

lir. nart: They do not know anything about it.

l\Ir. JESSON: They do, and shortly I will tell the hon. member how much they do know. There has been no protest from the Brisbane City Council or from any other local authority, but there have been some telegrams of congratulation. In my opinion the opposi­tion comes from the big graziers. After all, who owns the land~ The land belongs to the State, to the people.

Some of the big graziers who own hundreds of square miles of land pay only a nominal rent to the Crown, and consequently pay very little rates indeed to the local authorities. I want to emphasise the fact that they pay only a nominal rental, which means perhaps only an eighth of a penny in the £1, to local authorities. If hon. members opposite, especi­ally those who have been suggested as fit and proper persons to be appointed to this committee, knew anything at all about the State of Queensland, they would be aware of the chaotic conditions that prevail among certain local authorities. They would also know that on some of the local councils there are big graziers who mess about and gerry­mander with the rates so that they will not have to pay very much in rates to the local authority. In one shire it is low rates and high valuations, and in another low valua­tions and high rates. No two shires adjoining in Queensland are alike. Now it is suggested that these big pastoral companies, and the banks, too, which own most of the big pas­toral properties, want to have a committee appointed to go into the matter. Of course, some of the members of the committee, those from the opposite side of the Chamber, will try to bamboozle hon. members from this side on the subject of land valuations. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, I place great emphasis on the word ''try.''

Jlir. l\[aher: The object of Parliament should be to bring the most experienced minds to bear on the subject.

lUr. JESSON: I thank the hon. member for the interjection, because it gives me the opportunity to tell him that the Opposition are not bringing the most experienced minds to bear. Imagine what the people of Queens­land have thought of the Opp0sition over a number of years. They have not given hon. members opposite credit for very much intel­ligence, otherwise hon. nrembers opposite

would not be sitting in their places in such small numbers, divided into five or six dif­ferent parties.

~Ir. l\fuHer: You are lucky to be here.

Mr. JESSON: That is all right; I shaH be here when the hon. member is not.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! Will the hon. member please discuss the Bill~

ltlr. JESSON: It has been suggested that we should bring the most intelligent minds to bear on the subject. Hon. members oppo­site are not entitled to four members on the committee, in view of their numbers in Par­liament.

The Secretary for Public Instruction: They should have only half a man.

~Ir. JESSON: Yes, perhaps I could put it that way. They are entitled to only one or perhaps two. That would be a liberal gesture on the part of the Government, because it would be according to the ratio of their members to the total membership of Parlia­ment.

~Ir. Dart: Is that all you would give them~

1\'Ir. JESSON: I am sorry if the hon. member is not on the committee, because I think he >vould add a little prestige to it. 'fhe point I make is that there are chaotic conditions throughout the length and breadth of Queensland because some of the local authorities have low rates and high valua­tions, which means that those big holders who hold their land from tile Crown at very small rentals pay next to nothing to the local authorities by way of rates, and so the local authorities are deprived of their just dues in this respect from the holders of those lands.

Mr. Muller: Suppose what you say is right; what harm does it do?

llir. JESSON: It is right? It is the hardy annual at local authority conferences. The subject of uniform valuations has always been brought forward at local authority confer­ences, but of course they have been discon­tinued because of the war.

Mr. MULLER: I want you to tell me what harm it does, and you have not done that.

Mr. JESSON: What harm what does?

Jlir. JUuller: The variation in values.

Mr. JESSON: What harm is it doing?

Mr. ~fuller: Yes.

ltlr. JESSON: I have already explained that point, but perhaps the hon. member for Fassifern was not able to gr'asp it. I explained that if a holder holds large areas of land from the Crown at a very low rental, he has a low valuation for local authority purposes, and so he >Yould not be called upon to pay anything like the amount of rates in proportion to his area as is paid by a farmer on an area of land close to the town. In

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OcTOBER.] Valuation of Land Bill. 981

some country districts the boundaries of big stations come right up to the perimeter of the town. In the vVinton-Longreach and far­western districts the boundaries of huge stations embracing thousands of acres, and in some cases hundreds of square miles almost enclose the townships. Consequently, the people on smaller areas near the to>vn pay more in proportion to thei1' areas than the O\vners of these huge tracts of pastoral land pay, and many of these owners are living in Sydney and Melbourne, and perhaps as far away as London. A system of uniform valuation will enable a man to know exactly what he will have to pay, and thus the whole scheme will work out equitably from all points of view.

I s.hould like to reply to the interjection by the hon. member for Wynnum, that there had been no congratulations to the Govern· ment on the Bill, and I want specifically to tell him that the Hinchinbrook Shire Council, which is in my electorate, sent a telegram to the Minister heartily congratulating him on introducing it, and added that the telegram would be followed by a letter confirming it. In it was a suggestion that the Government should allow appeals with respect to land up to the value of £1,000 to go to the Land Court. Whether that is right or wrong is debatable. Many police. magistrates do not know a great deal about land or land matters, and therefore may make some mistakes in dealing with such appeals. Nevertheless, it would be impossible for the Govemment to allow all such appeals to be made to the Land Court. A special land court would ;have to be created, because there would be so many appeals from the various local-authority areas, with their varying conditions, that otherwise the business of the court would be cluttered up, and it would be weeks and months before the cases could be heard. There are approxi­mately 125 stipendiary magistrates stationed throughout the State. If appeals a·gainst land valuations up to £1,000 were heard by them, and the Bill stipulated that if the appellants were dissatisfied with the decision, they could appeal to the Valuer-General or Valuation Board it might mean that these appeals could be dealt with expeditiously and thus delay would be obviated.

The Bill is long overdue. Certainly it will be some little time before its machinery can be working smoothly. Doubtless it will be necessary to introduce amendments to it from time to time as it is a Bill of some magnitude.

The Government have introduced it for the benefit of the people generally, not a section of them. The Opposition would lead us to believe that the Bill should do something for a section of the people, but it is designed to give relief and benefit to all the people. Those people who gave the Opposition their brief for the amendment should have held their horses until the Act had been operating, when I feel sure they will be satisfied.

Mr. DECKER (Sandgate) (3.36 p.m.): I rise to support the amendment. Every hon. member must have been greatly impressed by the absolutely sound reasons given by

the Leader of the Opposition why the passage of this Bill should not be a hurried on.e. It is a Bill of tremendous importance, with very wide Tamifications. It has so many objection­able features in its present form that rather than .have amendments constantly moved from this side of the House, in Committee, the course suggested should be adopted. It is an admirable one. Unlike the hon. member for Kennedy, we. should not quibble about the Leader of the Opposition's making a sugges­tion as to the personnel of the select com­mittee. He has a perfect right to do so. We in this House do not want to be belittled and have it said that because the Government ;have presented a Bill involving untold hard· ships and matters of tremendous importance, we must accept it without question. We should analyse its principles carefully so that we may enact something we shall all be proud of. If we do not do that we are only pas· sing a Bill that must be amended from time to time. That is what we are endeavouring to avoid.

It is remarkable that the Minister made out a very weak case for the Bill. I am certain that anyone listening to his second-reading speech realised that even he does not appre­ciate its full implications, and t.he interjection of the Secretary for Public Lands showed that even he is not fully conversant with all its provisions. We had the experience this morning of hearing the Minister say that land valuations are not a basis for taxation under this Bill, except for local-authority purposes. Fancy telling this House that that is the only principle in this Bill and that it does not affect land taxation, when we find that one of its main principles is that valna­tions made under it shall be the value of the land concerned under and for the purposes of the Land Tax Acts, the Local Government Acts, and the City of Brisbane Acts.

It also provides tha:t the department shall supply to the Land Tax Commissioner all the available details of valuations made and amending valuations. This implies that the Bill is brought down for a specific purpose. That is not the purpose stated by the Minis­ter, but the purpose of basing taxation on land values arrived at through the new department that is to be set up. There is no question about that. It applies in the same way to the local authorities. But this is not the Bill that we hoped to see, a Bill that would create valuations for all taxation auth­orities and be a uniform Valuation Bill and not the limited thing that we have before us.

We know that in a Bill of this importance the very first thing we should look to in decid­ing our attitude to the Bill is: what field does it cover, and what are the reasons why it covers those fields~ If we do, we find at once one important thing is missing. What importance will this department have for the pmposa of Commonwealth land taxation~ I raised this point on the initiatory stage and I asked the Minister if he had presented a copy of this Bill to the Commonwealth to find out whether it would approve of the prinriple and adopt the valuations made under it for the purpose of Commonwealth taxation.

982 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Land Bill.

This morning the Minister failed to answer that point. He stated that in the State Land 'rax Act and under the Commonwealth Land Tax Act there were provisions laying down a basis of valuation exactly similar to that contained in the Bill. I say definitely that is conclusive evidence to this House that the Minister does not know what attitude the Commonwealth Government will take towards the values made by the new department, and I think before we agree to a Bill of this importance we should know what the Common­wealth attitude will be. It is the endeavour of hon. members on this side to bring about some system of uniform valuations, but in order to do that we must have a system that will be approved by the Co=onwealth Government and the State Government for land-tax values, and by the local authorities. It should also be laid down that every other :field of taxation, such as stamp duties, in which land valuation has a bearing on the amount to be paid, should have a common basis. When we have uniformity to that degree we reach the objective that ev<lryone desires. But we :find that the Bill is restricted to State land-tax and local-authorit·r rating. It is true there is special provision" whereby these purposes can be enlarged although they are not speci:fically enumerated. This would mean the Act would have to be amended or its scope enlarged by regulation. I say unhesitatingly, having this principle in view, that if we are desirous of passing an Act of value to the State for all purposes we should draft a. very different Bill to the one before us.

Particular objections to the Bill have been ably put by the Leader of the Opposition. There are some very objectionable pro­Vlswns. One of our principal objections is that preferential pastoral leaseholds and grazing-farm leaseholds are to be valued on the basis of freehold. I am sure no real reason has been given that would satisfy the House as to the need for a change from the present system of valuing them at 20 times the a'nnual rental.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Let me tell you of an incident that was respon­sible for the amendment of the law. A couple of years ago the Bungil Shire Council asked for amendment of the law so that closer-settlement lands could be Yalued on a freehold basis, so as to bring those values down to the freehold basis.

lUr. nECKER: That does not matter; one can alwa'ys :find a particular case for or against. We ha've no evidence that the method at present adopted for the valuing of these leaseholds is not sntisfactorv to the holders, and it is not unsatisfactory to the Crmm. It is a method that suits all parties. Why disturb itW How can we dra:w an analogy between leasehold and freehold tenures? Thev are as diffeTent as chalk is from cheese. ·The principle of applying fTee­hold values to leasehold lands is self­contradictory. It is quite unsound, and we have experience in this State proving that the pl'actice a'dopted at present is satisfac­tory to the Crown a.nd to the tenants, and

when a Bill is brought down containing a principle that suggests putting freehold values on leasehold property, we must look for the reason behind the action.

The Secretary for Public Works: If all the land in Queensland were leasehold there could not be a valuation, according to your argument.

lUr. DECRER: That is altogether wrong, but I will not be led from this point. We have to look for a reason for the change, and there can be only one, and that is to give local authorities an opportunity to obtain extra rates from the holders of these leases or for the purpose of ra.king in more Sta'te land tax At the present time these lands are exempt fTom State land tax, but I venture the opinion that once this land is yalued on a freehold basis the CTown will make it liable to State land tax.

The Attorney-General: What authoritY have you for saying that~

Mr. nECKER: There is no other reason for this change unless it is to increase taxa­tion.

The Secretary for Public Lands: A number of members on your side agree with the principle of uniform taxation.

Jir. DECKER: There could not be any other reason for it, but if there is, it behoves the Government to tell this House that reason. There must be a basis for the change, and I have a perfect right to draw my conclusions from the words of the Bill. The only reason I can see for the change is that if leasehold is valued on a freehold basis, it will become an easy matter for the Taxation Department to impose State land tax on people who now escape it because they have leaseholds which are valued at 20 times the annual Tental. If it is not so, it behoYes the Minister to dispTove it.

Another objectionable part of the Bill is that which has to do with the hearing and determination of appeals. Appeals on Yaluations over £1,000 are to be determined by the Land Court, but up to £1,000 by a stipendiary magistrate. That is a division o:!' authority between two dissimilar tribunals, and brings about an extraordinary situation. The Land Court was set up for the specific purpose of adjudicating on land values. The rules of evidence in the Land Court were designed to give the greatest amount of information to the court.

Judges of the Land Court, by their con­stant association with land matters, acquire a special knowledge of their work. From decisions of the Land Court an appeal can be made to the Land Appeal Court. But where the valuation is less than £1,000 the appeal is to be heard before a Magistrates Court. This applies tu the poorer class of landholder. He has the right of appeal only to a magistrate. The magistrate has not the skill or qualifications of members of the Land Appeal Court because his work lies in an entirely different direction. It needs a skilled yaluer to give a correct decision on land valua­tions. The magistrate's quali:fications for that

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OCTOBER.] Valuation of Land Bill. 983

work are very little, if any. These appeals are heard en bloc, and the idea in the magis­trate's mind is to hear them as quickly as possible and to get to a basis of settlement. Hon. members who have had any dealings with these matters will know how these appeals are conducted. Undoubtedly the magistrate is going to do his best to make some equitable arrangement and settle the appeal so that both sides are satisfied. He might even go to the trouble of making a personal inspection of the lands in question, but that does not get away from the fact that he may not be acquainted with the peculiarities of the district, that all he has at his disposal is a short case put up by the valuer on behalf of the Crown or local authority and whatever evidence the appel­lant adduces. Without any specific know­ledge, he is asked to adjudicate on that evi­dence. I grant that he will do his best, but is that giving satisfaction~ It cannot give entire satisfaction, and if the appellant is not satisfied with the hearing before the magistratp, he has no right of appeal. The magistrate's decision ends the matter.

But when we approach the Land Court­and here the big holders are really the only ones interested-we find that if the appel­lants are not satisfied they have the right to appeal to a higher tribunal. If it is just to treat the wealthy landholders in that way, why not give the same right of appeal to those who are holding lands of lesser value~

1\''lr. Power: They do not want it.

Mr. DECKER: It is all very well for the hon. member to say that, but at all times in this Chamber I have been an advocate of the right of appeal. We are too free and easy in eliminating the right of appeal, the very foundation of our democratic principles, from our legislation. To allow the right of appeal to the smaller holders is merely giving justice to those who m·ay wish to use it if they feel that they will get satisfaction from a higher tribunal. I know that where the amounts involved are less than £1,000 that right would seldom be availed uf, but still it would be there to be exercised if neces­sary. We should give all landholders the right of appeal to a higher tribunal if they are dissatisfied with the decision of the magistrate.

Another objectionable feature of the Bill is that as it now stands Crown witnesses at an appeal court cannot be cumpelled to pro­duce documentary or other evidence of material value to the court, but full dis­closure of all information must be made by an appellant, under a penalty for refusal. This is a proposal that should be stoutly resisted so that all the parties may be able tu approach the court on equal terms.

JUr. Jesson: Who signed that paper that you have there~

1\'Ir. DECKER: There is no signature on it. It is not even a letter-just a few head notes. vVe are here to do justice by every­body, or at least that should be our aim, but how can be achieve it if we accept the lopsided justice the Bill proposes~ Why

should a greater measure of power be given to the department by allowing it to with­hold evidence and documents required for the purpose of an appeal, while if the appellant does not produce all his evidence­which at that stage would be to the advan­tage of the Crown-he shall be liable to a peimlty? lf the proposal is fair for one it should be fair for the other, and that is one aspect of the Bill tha't calls for careful con­sideration. We are all here, I take it, to do justice by the people as a whole and not with the object of preventing some of the people from getting their just dues. Every one or us should see that the Bill is designed to preserve the rights of the people and give them equal treatment in the matter of appeals with that accorded to the Valuer­General

Another provision to which I object refers to the time within which an objection ma'y be lodged against a notice of valuation. The Bill prescribes that the appeal shall be lodged within 30 days from the date of notice of valuation. The time is far too short. When the notices are sent out, the addressee or the owner of the land mav be absent from his home or ill, and having regard to the vast distances in this State, a period of 30 days in which to lodge a'n objection is not long enough Why not extend the time~

The Secretary for Public Lands: The court can take that fact into eonsideration, as has been done in Land Court ca&es.

Mr. DECKER: But the Bill lays it down that the appeal shall be lodged within 30 days.

Tl!e Secretary for Public Lands: So does the Land Act, and there have been decisions on it.

lUr. DECKER: The owner should have e•ery facility to lodge his objection to the notice of valuation. Again I ask: Why limit the time to 30 days~ I suggest to the Minister that he amend the Bill to provide that an appeal may be lodged within 60 to 90 days. There should be no objection to that. The time should be as long as possible so that no-one will be deprived of his right of appeal. On the one hand the Bill lays it down that the appellant shall lodge his appeal within 30 days, but the Valuer­General ma'y give his decision at any time. That means that he can withhold his decision to s·uit his convenience, which may be for a month, two months, six months, and even longer. If it is fair to fix a time limit in one case it is fair in the other.

The Bill gives the department the right of private practice. That is one of the weak­nesses of the measure. ·why should a State department seek to enga'ge in this business as a private practitioner¥ There is no need for it. Why take awa.y from a certain sec­tion of the business people their inherent right to make a living by making land valun­iions? A land valuer is a professional ma·n. He must obtain a certificate of competence to enable him to practise his profession,

984 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Land Bill.

otherwise his valuations will not he accepted. Why deprive him of that right by giving it to a State department~ That is an objec­tionable feature of the Bill.

The Minister, apparently, has forgotten that the Local Government Act provides for a minimum valuation in respect of local authority lands and that the City of Bris­bane Act provides for a different minimum valuation from that prescribed for other local authorities. When we discussed the subject of minimum valuations, we did so in the hope that a: small matter like this might be easily and fairly adjusted.

If we are now to create one valuing depart­ment to cover all valuations, all minimum valuations should be the same. We should not have one minimum valuation for the city of Brisbane and another for the other areas.

It would interesting to know what the Minister estimates the cost of this depart­ment will be and how it will affect the nuances of a shire. I observe from the Bill that shires must apportion their costs to this department. 'The valuer's department of the Brisbane City Council is composed of men specially trained in land values, particularly in the city, and probably the Minister has in mind absorbing it.

While his proposal to divide the State into districts is a good one I suggest that he consider the enlargement of the Land Court by the appointment of district Land Court judges.

Mr. POWER (Baroona) (3.5 p·.m.): I am rather surprised that the Leader of the Oppo­sition seeks to take control of the business of this House out of the hands of the Govern­ment by moving for a select committee and naming the representatives of the Government on that committee without iirst consulting them as to whether they are willing to act.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is necessary for an hon. member, in moving for the select com­mittee, to name the personnel of that com­mittee.

Mr. POWER: My point is he did not consult the hon. members on this side of the House he suggested, to see if they were will­ing to act.

Mr. Nicklin: How do you know?

Mr. POWER: I know the hon. gentle­man did not. I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, that he must name the personnel of the Com­mittee but I contend he has no right to nomi­nate an hon. member for that committee with­out first consulting him to see if he will sit on it.

One of the complaints of the hon. member for Fassifern was that the valuers appointed under this Bill would be controlled by Bris­bane. I remind him that the schedule attached to this Bill provides for the creation of valuation districts, nine in number. They comprise Brisbane and East Moreton, West Moreton, Downs and South-Western, Southern Downs, Wide Bay and Burnett, Rockhampton and Central-Western, Townsville and North-

·western and Cairns and Far Northern. I fail to see, therefore, how the hon. member for :B'assifern can support his contention that this Bill makes provision for control from Brisbane.

This Bill seeks to bring about uniformity in land values for State land-taxation and local-authority purposes. Is it not important that we should make a sincere attempt to bring about uniformity in land values~ Is it right that similar parcels of land in, say, the city of Brisbane area should carry differential land values~ We know the system that oper­ates in land values in Brisbane. They are based on the sales of land in the district. Because certain people pay liigh prices for certain properties they desire to acquire, valua tions in the whole of that area are increased. This Bill eliminates that principle altogether. It states that the unimproved value of land is what it could be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reason­able terms and conditions as a bona-fide seller would require. A bona-fide seller would require a certain sum but a person who was very anxious to acquire that land would be ·willing to pay a much higher price than a reasonable price for it, but under this Bill his action would not have the effect of inflat­ing all land values in the district. I remind hon. members that recently, not only in Bris­bane but throughout the State generally, a ceiling prices was fixed for real property. We had the spectacle of a property at Ashgrove, with a capital value of £1,200, being submitted at public auction and realising £3,000.

Had the Commonwealth Government not placed a restriction on dealings with such properties, it could have changed hands for that amount. That goes to show how the value of properties can be inflated. 'The local authority could, if it so desired-! do not say the Brisbane City Council would-increase the values of property to fictitious levels, not only in Brisbane but throughout Queensland, because of the tremendous shortage of houses.

Mr. Luckins: Not during a five-year period.

JUr. POWER: There is provision by which it ean. If a person has a large parcel of land and desires to subdivide it into por­tions which must not be less than 24 perches, he can do so with the approval of the local authority, and if there was no provision to prevent it the purchasers would find values for rating purposes greatly inflated. Of course, it would be a go-od thing for people who have property and who have been wait­ing for the golden opportunity to get rid of it at high prices-and I do not blam'e people for holding onto property for the purpose of inYestment. Nobodv can reasonably object to the creation of a Valuer-General's Department so that values c:m be prepared for local authorities generally. We know that Parliament has had to pass amending legislation ·on more than one occasion to validate the acts of local authorities because they had not carried out their valua­tions in accordance with the Local Govern· ment Act. That was done, not in an isolated case, but in many cases, and the Government

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OCTOBER.] Valuation of Land Bill. 985

were called upon to validate the acts of the local authorities, otherwise they would not have been able to meet their commitments and would have defaulted.

Let us see what the Bill really says. We find that ''unimproved value'' is defined in clause 12, which is taken from the Land Tax Act, which in this respect is identical with the Commonwealth Land Tax Act and is founded upon the decision of the High Court of Australia in a valuation appeal some time ago. What could be fairer~ No-one can reasonably suggest the Govemment would bring in. a Bill for the purpose of getting at certam people. The Government are always .Pr.epared to do the right thing by the maJonty of the people. The complaints we have heard seem to have come from cer­tain absentee pastoralists who have large holdings throughout Queensland and who are complaining because they are to be brought under the same provision as freeholders. Why should a farmer with freehold property have a different basis of valuation from the man next door who has leasehold property~ It is not sound business that there should be any difference. This Bill will clear that matter up.

JUr. Dart: Can you give an instance in which this has happened~

Mr. POWER: The hon. member alleges that he was a farmer one time, and he knew many parts of Queensland, but if he had any knowledge of land matters he would know exactly what has taken place. The only knowledge of land matters he has is building houses at Wynnum and charging high rents to the workers and refusing to provide them with water for their bathrooms. .

The hon. member for Sandgate has made a. ~omplaint about the right of appeal. Pro­nswn has been made for the right of appeal for years against local authority valuations. We know we have a stipendiary magistrate in Brisbane who deals with appeals against valuations. It is a.lleged by the hon. member for Sandgate that stipendiary magistrates have not an adequate knowledge of land matters on which to base a sound decision. Under clause 12 of the Bill the essential prin­ciple upon which unimproved values shall be based is stated, and this will guide not only the local authority and the stipendiary magis­trate, but the members of the Land Court.

Another con1plaint is that the person whose property is valued at less than £1,000 cannot appeal to the Land Court. Could anyone reasonably suggest that a person owning property to the value of £1,000-perhaps in the far-western parts of Queensland-would wa'nt to brief counsel to state a case to the Land Court in regard to his valuation~ Would he not put it before the stipendiary magistrate at much less cost~

I might also point out to hon. members opposite that such a man has first of all an appeal to the Valuer-General. The hon. mem­bers for Maree and Wynnum, who have been members of the local-governing body of Brisbane, as I have been, must know of many instances in which valuations have been

made by the City Valuer and his assistant, but when appeals were lodged against those valuations numbers of them never got to the Appeal Board, because conferences and interviews were held with the valuers, and they were quite willing to compromise with the appellants by making a reduction in the val ua tions. A similar set of circumstances will apply so far as the Valuer-General's Department is concerned. If an owner is not satisfied with the decision of that official he will have the right of appeal to a stipendiary magistrate. As to properties with a valua­tion in excess of £1,000, there is also the right of appeal to the Valuer-General, just aR there is when the valuation is below £1,000. There is also the right of appeal to the Land Court, and if the appellant is not then satisfied, he can appeal to the Land Appeal Comt. What could be fairer than that~ Every protection has been given to these people. If they are dissatisfied with their assessments they can appeal to the highest tribunal in the land and put their case before it. They must abide by the decision given there, but they have their right of appeal. For valuations under £1,000, therefore, there are two additional tribunals.

The hon. members for Sandgate and Wynnnm are only flying kites by suggesting that appellants concerned with amounts under £1,000 should have the right of appeal to the Land Court. Who would take the risk of spending a large amount of money in briefing counsel to take these valua tions before the Land Court when they can be dealt with more expeditiously and at less cost before a stipendiary magistrate~ These provisions operate to-day. It is remarkable that we have never heard the hon. members for Wynnum or Sandgate, who were members of the Council of Brisbane, suggesting since they have been members of this Parliament­and they have been here for some time­that the existing provisions should be amended to give these landholders the right of appeal to the Land Court.

The hon. member for Sandgate also com­plains that 30 days is not sufficient time to give notice of appeal. I remind the hon. member that in the Local Government Act the time is only 28 days. That provision has operated for a number of years, and there have been no complaints.

Mr. Luckins: That does not mean that the appeal will be heard within 28 days~

Mr. POWER: No, the appeal will be heard at the convenience of the court, but under the Local Government Act notice of appeal must be given within 28 days. This Bill gives two additional days. The hon. member has made no complaint previously about that. Moreover, there have been no complaints from the people of Brisbane; and I have some knowledge of the working of the City Council, having been a member of that local authority for four years.

This Bill is a very important one and should receive the full support of the House. I know what is pricking the minds of hon. members opposite. Their concern is that some of these properties may be revalued

986 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Land Bill.

and they may have to pay some land tax on them. It is not the desire of the Government to make other people pay land tax, but if people have gone so long without paying tax when they should, there is no reason why they should not now pay land tax. Every­body has the duty to pay land tax if he is liable for it, and if they have evaded it that is no reason why they should continue to do so.

li'Ir. Maher: The cat is out of the bag.

1\'Ir. POlVER: It is not. That is not the reason for the Bill, but if it should hurt some people they ·will lwYe to be hurt. They should not complain if they are corn pelled to pay, simply because over a number of years they have escaped paying land tax. But the cat is out of the bag so far as the hen. member for \Vt't Morcton is concerned, becau'e we can now see the reason for the objection to the Bill. The Bill contains very important provisions and is long overdue. I am pleased to support it, and I oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. LUCKI:"iS (Maree) (3.20 p.m.): I thank the Minister for drawing attention to a mistake I made about fees in respect to five appeals concerning land 011 Kangaroo Point. I withdraw the amount of £250 and substitute approximately £200-odd. I regret making that mistake and I hope it will not occur again.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Be more careful in future.

JUr. :LUCKIN§: Jf the hon. gentleman were half as careful as I am he would ue a long way ahead of what he is to-day.

I gave this Bill my blessing when it was being introduced, but I stated then that I should reserve comment until I saw its pro­visions. To-day I have had the Bill handed to me. This is the procedure under the Standing Orders-that hon. members arc supplied with a Bill ·when the second reading is moved.

I agree with the principle of uniform valuations, but there are many provisions in the Bill that ·call for adjustment or altera­tion, and I am supporting the amendment.

In giving reasons for supporting it I wish to trace the science of valuing so that hon. members might appreciate that this is a highly skilled practice and that men have given up a great deal of time to study it in order to become proficient at it. There are many private valuers in the State, as well as many associated with the Government and the local authorities, and I believe that every one of them holds the necessary qualification to permit him to make valuations for State and municipal purposes.

The city of Brisbane comprises an area of :Jt':5 square miles. I believe it has 116,000 ratepayers, many of whom hold more than one subdivision of land. Under this Bill it is suggested that valuations be made every five years. That may be acceptable to many, but to others it n.ay not be. The old pra:c-

tice in the metropolitan area was to make valuations yearly and rates were struck nccordingly. As the hon. member for Baroona pointed out, anom·alies existed under that system and from time to time the Government had to amend the law to ratify what local authorities had done. One of the outstanding cases of an-omalies was that con­nected with the valuing of the Southport lands. When the m.atter came to court the magistrate pointed out that the valuations were not valid according to tho Act; wrth the result, I believe, that the Southport T?wn Council could not issue rate notices until a slight amendment had been made to the Act.

I suggest to the Minister that he take a little advice from the Opposition in connec­tion with this measure. l believe that he has excellent men in charge of the affairs of local government in this State, but som·e­times they are too prone to look at the ques­tion from one angle only. Although we have hon. members on both sides who have some experience, it is well that we put forward here proposals that we think will help the Government to clarify the Bill and give the ratepayers and taxpayers the least possil;Jle inconvenience. No interest in the commumty will agree una"nimously on the question of valuation of lands because peculiar circum­stances surround the valuing of every site. Enormous difficulty was experienced when the old local authorities in the Brisbane area were amalgamated under the Greater B~is­bane City Council. Those 365 square n;rles of land in the metropolitan area compnsed at least 250,000 allotments. In its early days the Greater Brisbane Council employed 10 valuers, and I state publicly that a correct valuation has never been made of the whole of the ratable land in the Greater Brisbane area because it was impossible for those 10 men' to do the work in the time given. At that time it >Yas one year. Valuations had to be completed before 30 .June so that the rate for the ensuing year could be struck.

This is a big question, and I hope t~at t~e House will spend a good deal of time m debating it so that the people who may be concerned will get a measure that is accept­able to them. I find in the Bill one or two clauses that I think will be objectionable to the g1·eat body of the taxpayers.

We must look at the matter from this angle: the Crown is really the people, and when we pass an Act of Parliament we must take care to see that the Crown does not deprive the people individually of their sovereign rights. An Act should extend benefits to the people, and not give advantages solely to the Government or a board or a department con­trolled by the Government. Many Acts of Parliament are so lopsided that the first con­sideration is always given to the Crown. Some­times all rights are given to the Crown or rather to a board or to a department to the exclusion of the public generally. It is th~ people themselves who ~et~rn members ~f Parliament to watch therr mterests, and rt is our duty to guard the rights and privileges of those who send us herB. When we appro-:e of a law >Ye must take care to see that It

Valuation of Land Bill. I OCTOBER.) Valuation of Land Bill. 987

will give the people the best possible service and that it is not likely to lead to a conflict or confusion.

Glancing through the Bill, I notice that it is proposed to give the Crown the right to accept one of two methods of valuing, one on the basis of the unimproved value and the other on the basis of the improved value.

The Secretary for Labour and Employ­ment: What clause is that in?

Mr. LUCKINS: It is in the Bill.

The Secretary :for Labour and Employ­ment: What clause?

Mr. LUCKINS: I have not got the Bill by me.

JUr. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. mem­ber will not be entitled to deal with the clauses of the Bill at this stage; he can only deal with principles.

lUr. LUCKINS: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that protection. I am amazed that a Minister of the Crown should be so little acquainted with an important Bill as to ask a question like that. He should be prepared to give guidance to a new hon. member, especially when he has not the benefit of having notes prepared for him to enable him to make a speech. If a Bill is to provide that one of two methods may be adopted it is bound to place the Government in a quan­dary in deciding which of the two they will adopt. It will mean that they \rill adopt whichever method suits them better, and, mark you, the Valuer-General will have power to make a valuation at any time and not only at the expiration of the five-year period. That confirms my suspicion that too much power will be delegated to the Valuer-General.

Let me discuss two properties in Queen street to illustrate my point. The basis of valuation by a local authority to-day in the city of Brisbane is so much a foot frontage. I believe that the most highly valued parcel of land in the city is Stew art Dawson 's corner, which is valued at £700 a foot. I ask hon. members to have a look at that corner of Edward and Queen street and to observe the buildings on it. They are only one and two storeys high. If we are going to adopt the improved value as a basis of valuation for rating purposes, what is to happen in the case of the parcel of land on which Finney Isles and Company has its business, or in respect of other buildings, three, four, and, in some cases, 10 storeys high~ It is wrong to value land on the basis of its improved value. There is only one fair basis that can be adopted for rating pur­poses and that is the unimproved value, which is the one prescribed by law to-day. The existing system provides that only the unim­proved value shall be taken into consideration, and it is that system that enables the authority concerned to give proper service to the com­munity for what they pay. If the owners of land are to be penalised for developing their parcels of land into beauty spots, for instance, ho\Y are we to get on from the viewpoint of

civic pride~ That would discourage any man from taking a pride in his home or his city or any building that he might own. The hon. member for Baroona said that a parcel of land situated at Ashgrove valued at £1,200 realised £3,000 at auction. That sale would have gone through had it not been for the precautions taken by the Commonwealth Government in connection with the sale of land.

Regulations issued by the Commonwealth Government last year under the National Security regulations govern the sale and pur­chase of all property and affect the values of property. Before a sale can be completed, no fewer than 12 forms have to be completed. In that system we have the necessary safeguard to prevent inflation o:l' land values from taking place.

The Secretary for Public Lands: That is purely a temporary measure.

Mr. LUCIHNS: That is so. I as an estate agent and valuer think that it is neces­sary, because through the influx of people into this city property prices were soaring so high that they did not reflect true values.

The Secretary for Public Lands: Ulti­mately a c1·ash would have come.

1\Ir. LUCKINS: That is so. It was inflation of the worst type. Fortunately, the Commonwealth Government issued regulations making it compulsory, not only for the seller to get permission to sell, but for the intending pmchnser to purchase. Then the Real Pro­perty Institute of Queensland, which is com­posed of a fine type of man, was authorised to check the valuations in order to arrive at the true value, not only of the land, but of the improvements thereon. In almost every case the Government accepted their valuation.

I counsel the Minister to take into consid­eration the unfortunate set of conditions pre­vailing not only in this city but throughout the State to-day. They are abnormal. There­fore, this Bill should be allowed to remain in abeyance until normality is reached and vic­tory is ours. I do not care what kind of legislation it is, whether it is good or bad, it will find an uneasy passage in these abnormal times. The Bill should therefore be with­drawn and introduced when normal conditions return. Prices of land and commodities will then find their true level. The best possible evidence will then be obtainable of the true value of the commodity we are dealing with to-day-after all, land is nothing more nor less than a commodity and its value is estab­lished by the use it is put to.

It is not a good thing for any Government to make burdensome laws relating to land. After all, it is well recognised the world over by British people that a man's home is his castle, and they are at all times prepared to jealously guard that right against any inroads. Of course, they appreciate, too, the right of the Crown in it. In all legislation introduced in British Parliaments the prin­ciple that the people may own the fee simple in land is recognised. That is one of the principles of our system that call for some

988 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Land Bill.

merit. When you try to interfere with the rights of the people to hold land, even by amending legislation, a certain amount of confusion is ca'used. The people are jealous of these rights and that being so, they will study this Bill, with a view to finding out exactly what are the implications behind its clauses.

I want to take the o,pportunity of compli­menting the Leader of the Opposition on the clear and concise way in which he set out his reasons for moving his amendment. Its adop­tion should enable the Government to give some measure of relief to the people by mak­ing the investigations he suggests before this Bill is put to the final test.

l'vlention h~s been made of the development that has taken place in this State. Queens­land is a very young State. It is so young that it has not reached its lOOth birthday. i\f uch Crown land in it still remains unalien­ated. An examination will reveal that very little of its 400-odd million acres has been ahenated. That in itself discloses the Hercu­lean task being imposed on the valuers in the nine different valuation districts it is pro­posed to set up.

I do not think there are enough districts. It would have been better if the Government had taken the coastal areas from north to south and had separate districts for the pas­toral a'nd grazing lands instead of amal­gamating the coast and city areas with part of the back country.

The Secretary for Public Works: We could easily increase them later on.

Mr. LUCIUNS: That is a good suggeo;­tion. The task is beyond the present num­ber of valuers available.

Tlle Secretary for Public Works: That is one of the reasons why there are not more districts.

Mr. LUCKI.NS: The task is of great magnitude. We ha've not been able to estab­lish correct values in the metropolitan area since 1925, so I do not know that seven years is long enough for it.

Tlle Secretary for Public Works: It is 27 years, and they are not complete yet.

Mr. LUCKINS: They probably never will be. If that is so, it is no use bringing in a Bill until the Government can see their way clear to complete the whole of the job within that period.

Tlle Secretary for Public Works: We have to start.

lUr. LUCKINS: It is a difficult time, and my sympathies are with the Minister in the t.a'sk before him. Most of the experts of the Department of Public Lands and the local authorities are away doing a magnifi­cent job, ani! that leaves us shorthanded, and it is very difficult to get anybody to look after the interests of anybody associated with rea1 estate.

The Secretary for Public Works: Until those men come back there will not be a great deal of work.

lUr. LUCKINS: I am a real estate agent and my manager joined up, and I have not any staff. I have to depend on getting material typed outside wherever I can. That is a difficulty that is not peculiar to my busi­ness alone, but is common to Government departments and many others. We have to find out the best way to deal with this matter, ani! I think the amendment covers it well.

It may be interesting to hon. members if L quote a few statistics relating to the Greater Brisbane area to show the rapid progres13 maile ancl the conflicting values that have been established within it. I should like to take hon. members through the Greater Brisbane area from the seaside places to the centre of the city, pointing out the Yaluations established from time to time ancl the effect of continued floods and other matters on values. A period of five years is a long time when you have to adjust values to keep in line with present-clay values and sales. The Act clearly defines the value of a piece of land. The basis is what a: willing buyer >YOuld pay for a piece of land that a willing seller had to sell. That is as near as we can get.

Tlle Secretary for Public Lands: That should be reca~t, having regard to the changed circumstances.

Mr. LUCKINS: That is the old method of a'rriving at the value of land. It does not seem to me to be right, because cir­cumstances may be such that there is no buyer willing to buy a piece of land, and there may be no seller wishing to sell. That is as near as we can get to the correct prin­c1ple, but it does not clarify the position sufficiently or give the degree of certainty that we should like to see. I have known instances in a suburban area where a man with business foresight would go out and pick a site for a prospective business or picture-show and be willing to give £500 for 100 feet on the assumption that i.t was going tn develop, and trams would go through, and the council would supply water and elec­tricity and footpaths and road formation would be built. That man would anticipate the increase of value, a'nd so does the local authority. A peculiar set of circumstanws has arisen in the Brisbane City Council. The State Government, in their Wisdom or otherwise, !aiel it down in 1937 that local authorities could not value within a period of five years from a certain date-the values had to be stabilised for that period-but during the period the war came, and there has been no chanee for appeals on council values since 1937, and the Government have issued regulations extending the period and stabilising values until after the war.

It does not give the local authorities an opportunity to adjust their valuations, nor does it enable citizens to appeal against valuations. That is wrong in principle. It would be well before we pass this Bill to clear up that matter and say whether the right of appeal should not be given.

The Secretary for Public Lands: It cuts both ways.

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OcTOBER.] Valuation of Land Bill. 989

Jllr. LUCKINS: Yes, just as a high valuation and a low rate or a low valuation and a high rate. No set of citizens will agree unanimously on one or the other method. But we must legislate not for the individual or a section but for the whole of the community. Human nature is such that one set of people hold a certain method to be right, whereas others hold it to be wrong, and conflict goes on year after year. When appeals could be made against valuations it was found that in the Brisbane area there was so much congestion that they could not be dealt with. In the years 1935, 1936, and 1937 there were thousands of appeals, and the magistrate could not possibly deal with them.

::\Ir. Tlleodore: This Bill will improve that position.

lUr. LUCKINS: It will not improve it at all. The Act specifically provides, I would point out, that negotiations can be entered into between the valuer and the appellant in an endeavour to come to an agreement. That is a good provision-in fact, it is excellent-becausl' it gives dissatisfied pro­perty-owners an opportunity to keep away from courts. Personally, I clo not like approaching courts. I have always stayed from them. I would rather pay a little extra to have a matter settled without going to the court even if I thought I was in the right. I have aheady pointed out how difficult and expensive it was to approach a court.

JUr. Den·ies: A law for the rich and another for the poor.

)Ir. LUCKINS: Yes, the law of the Me des and Persians. The cost is an obstacle; it keeps a poor man from the court. If a landholder has a piece of land approximately of the value of £500 or £600, and feels aggrieved at the valuation, but cannot make any headway with the Valuer-General, there is nothing left to him but to go to the court. But what would be the use of the average citizen's approaching a court without legal representation to help him fight a case against the Crown? Therefore, he could only get redress at great cost, and one should always consider well before attempting to fight the Crown. It is like a man fighting himself, inasmuch as the Crown does not pay, and the subject always has to pay whether he wins or loses. We find such anomalies in many avenues of life. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out many difficulties in the way of this Bill.

As this is a taxation matter with special reference to land tax and local authority taxation, and the deriving of taxation from the valuation of the land; I respectfullY ask why this Bill has not been brought dm~n by the Secretary for Public Lands.

The Secretary for Public La.nds: It does not come under my department.

~ir. LUCKINS: This is a Valuation of Land Bill, and it should be the Secretary for Public Lands who administers it, because he is supposed to be the executive authority

i~ control of land. The Minister in charge of local government however is in control of this Bill, b.ut th~ Treasnr~r will get the benefit of any mcreased taxation it will bring about.

An Opposition Member: It is a taxation Bill.

lllr. L IICKINS: For the benefit of hon. members generally I might point out that in the Brisbane area there are 73 312 residences covering an area of 14,532 ' acres. Sevm~ hundred and six boarding-houses cover an area of 126 acres, and 6,893 fiats cover an area of 303 acres.

There are 2,080 shops and dwellings, 94 hostels covering an area of 199 acres, there are li5G shops used as <lwcllings covering an area of 1 7 acres, and so on until we get down to vacant land, of which there are 80,299 blocks covering an area of 94,504 acres. That YYil! give hon. members an idea of the area that will be covered by this Bill in Greater Brisbane alone. It will require a staff of at least 20 or 30 valuers to do the job in the Greater Brisbane area.

This new department is not going to let the local authorities or citizens off lightly, but is going to call npon the ra tcpayers in the metropolitan area, who are already pay· mg heavy Tates, to meet the cost of estal>lish­ing it. If the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition is accepted and the Bill is m a de satisfactory to all sections of the community it would be a graceful gesture if the Government would bear the cost of establishing the department and so give to the citizens of the State some return for the great volume of taxation they are now pay­ing. An action of that kind would show a true sense of statesmanship, give a true indi­cation that the Government have a sincere desire to return to the workers some benefit for the moneys they take out of their pockets. During my period in the Brisbane City Council the valuing department has cost £10,000, but through shortage of staff it iS having difficulty to-clay in making values. The present valuation was established at 30 June, 1942, for the year 1943, and in the Greater Brisbane area it was £20,070,000, an increase -of over £4,000,000 on the figure for 1924. 'Ne are showing a steady increase, and I am· afraid that under this Bill there will be ample opportunity to extract more revenue from the people by increasing values. An increase of only 1 per cent. will bring a tremendous amount of revenue to the State, because in Brisbane alone over £21,00,000 is taxable.

I commend the amendment to the Govern­ment. If they accept it they will be giving some tangible proof of a genuine desire to do something in the interests of the people.

THE SECRETARY .FOR PUBLIC LANDS (Hon. E. J. Walsh, Mirani) (3.55 p.m.): A Bill of this kind certainly gives one an oppor­tunity to elaborate on valuations generally, but I can assure hon. members that I do not propose to delay the House for any length of time. I have listened to some of the arguments of hon. members and have noticed

990 Valuation of Land Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Valuation of Land Bill.

that while hon. members opposite invite the Government to take advice from them it is very difficult for the Government to accept their advice, after carefully analysing their statements, because a casual examination of the Bill discloses that hon. members opposite have not got a grasp of its principles. I did not hear the whole of the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition, but one point he raised while I was here was that it would be unfair to value pastoral and grazing leases on a freehold basis. It is all a question of how the valuer does his job. After all, he would be obliged to take into considera­tion such things as the nature of the tenure in arriving at his valuation on a freehold basis, just as he is required under the Bill to assess the improved value and value improvements in order to arrive at the unim­proved value of the land in that ;vay. Hon. members opposite have been trying to con­vince hon. members of this side that the Valuer-General will have the choice of two valuations. He will have no such thing.

The hon. member for Maree and the hon. member for Sandgate know as well as any­bodv else in this House that if the valuer doe~ his job he must value the improvements before he can anive at the unimproved value of the land.

Mr. Luckins: Not for local-authority purposes.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: If that is so, then I can imagine that quite a number of local-authority valuations have cer­tainly been made on false premises.

1Ur. Luckins: On the unimproved value.

The SECRETARY l'OR PUBLIC LANHS: Exactly. But. how are yon going to arrive at the unimproved value if you do not first arrive at the improved valne and make the deduction~ I know that just as there were anomalies under the old law so there will be anomalies under the uniform system.

Mr. Luckins: Take the position of two blocks of land contiguous to each other, one improved and the other unimpro>ed. All that is required is the unimproved value of each: block.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: It will all depend on how the valuer does his work in arriving at the unimproved value of the land. If he has nothing else to guide him, he will take the unimproved value of the land and nothing more. Hon. members oppo­site ha>e said that the Valuer-General will have the right to make a choice, but in either case he must arrive at the unimproved value, and he can do that by taking the value of the irr,provements as determined by the va1uers from the impToved value. That is a sound principle, and it is a provision that must be made.

On the question of pastoral leases and lease­hold tenures generally I might say again that in local-authority aTeas under the law in force now, the method of arriving at the valuation of a pastoral lease or a grazing tenure for local-government purposes is to

take 20 times the annual rent, whieh is purely an arbitrary method. It has no scientific ba'sis and consequently anomalies have occurred in various parts of the State. As a matter of fact, some two years ago the Secretary for Health and Home Affairs brought down an amendment of the Local Government Act, mainly at the request of the local authorities, who had pointed out that because certain lease­holds in their areas were required under the then law to be valued at 20 times the annual rent, the valuations were actually higher than the freehold values in those areas. Conse­quently, the Secretary for Health and Home Affairs amended the law so as to allow the local authority to have discretionary power -or the valuer so appointed by it-to arrive at a freehold value for that particular kind of lease, a closer settlement lease, that would have some relation to freehold values in that area. The exactly opposite principle was Hpplied in the Taroom Shire, where because of the low rentals that were applicable to the Ym·ious Crown tenures, and because the land wns valued at 20 times the annual rent, the shire was not getting anything like the requisite revenue to enable it to carry out the works that obviously should have been under­taken in that locality. You will finr1 instances of that throughout the State. I have a case in mind. When I was on the Sarina Shire Council we collected something like £200 a year in rates from a pastoTal lessee and did not do £5 worth of work for him. He did not need any roads. There was a huge range between the settled portion of the shire and the pastoTal leasehold, and from time to time we us·2d to give him payments of so much a year to do work in a gully or CTeek that would never otherwise have been done. We Tecognised his position. However, there is some justification, aTguable though it may be, for the right of the Valuer-General to value land of that kind on a freehold basis. It all comes down to the question: how will the valuer actually do his work~ In many cases I Yisualise that the valuations of grazing and pastoral leaseholds will actually be reduced. I can see that happening, as it has happened in the Bungil Shire.

Some reference was made to the fact that onlv a ceTtain time was allowed in which to appeal against a valuation. Under the Local Government Act the time in which an appeal may be lodged against a valuation is 28 days, whereas this measure provides for 30 days. The Land Tax Act pTovides that an appeal may be lodged against an assessment within 30 days. So there is no great departure from established principle in this Bill.

lUr. Kerr: The land-taxpayer is allowed 30 days in which to pay his tax and he is allowed the right of appeal within 30 days of the due date of payment, or 60 days in all.

The SECRETARY I<' OR PUBUC LANDS: He is allowed 30 days in which to appeal against the assessment. He does not get his valuation until he gets his assessment. You have got 30 days from that; consequently there is no great departure from that prin­ciple.

Valuation of Land Bill. [15 OCTOBER.] Valuation of Land Bill. 991

Under the Local Government Act the appeal against valuati8ns is to the Magistrates Court, but there was no a'ppeal from that court's decision, except on questions of law or on questions of jurisdiction, or where the court was wrongly constituteu. . The Local Government Act at the present bme does not allow any appeal against the decision of the magistrate on a question of fact. After all, the magistrate is only rcquh'ed to give his judgment according to the facts presented to him. Yet hon. members opposite say magistrates are not competent to give deci­sions in appeals against land valuations. In the next breath they proceeu to tell us how necessary it was for appellants to go to the valuation court with legal representatives to put their case for them. Are they trying to suggest that legal men-men trained in the law only-are more competent than a magis­trate to deal with appeals against land valua­tions? The Bill to some extent actually extends the right of appeal contained in the Act I have mentioned.

Hon. members opposite also argueu that the Valuer-General had the right to alter the valuation as and when he liked, but that is not strictly correct. If the Leader of the Opposition has come to that conclusion after perusing the Bill, all I can say is that he went over its provisions very cursorily. The Valuer-General has that power in the relevant section, but it is a lilnitcd one only. For instance, if land is subdivided in the five­year period, the Valuer-General has the right to revalue the land within that five-year period. If there has been some public under­taking in the nature of a water supply or sewerage, or both, again he has the right to revalue the land within the five-year period. Who •vill argue that he should not have that righH If a local authority undertakes the liability that such a work involves, it must see to it that its values are adjusted to meet the additional commitments. Does the Leader Qf the Opposition suggest that the Valuer­General should wait six years before revaluing this land for the benefit of the local authority~

llfr. Nicklin: I did not mention that point at all.

The SECRE'l'ARY :FOR PUBLIC LANDS: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the Valuer-General had the right to value the land at any time.

:ilir. Nicklin: No, I did not.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: ·well, the hon. member for Maree, who has just resumed his seat, definitely did say so.

Mr. Nicklin: Do not put it on me.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: I try to put as much as I can on the shoulders ,of the Leader of the Opposition-(laughter) -I will put this on his shoulders: He did say that an appellant would be obliged to place all his material at the disposal of the court cand Valuer-General, and the Valuer-General would not have to do the same.

lUr. Nicklin: Hear, hear!

Tlte SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Again I say that is not correct, because obviously, if the Valuer-General has to sus­tain his valuations, all his material must go before the Court. What the hon. gentleman has in mind-and it is to be found in many others of our laws-is the principle that the Valuer-General shall not be obliged to pro­duce this particular material where he may be involved in litigation outside the Land Appeal Court, as it were. In an appeal to the Land Court or Land Appeal Court is it not obvious that the Valuer-General will have to produce his material to sustain his valuation, in exactly the same way as the Crown has to place at the disposal of the Land Court all data, all reports, and relevant files in relation to the matter in question~

lUr, Nicklin: The Valuer-General does not have to send his in beforehand.

The SECRETARY l<'OR PUBLIC LANDS: The hon. gentleman would not expect the Valuer-General to do so. The appellant must in the first place state his case. That is a sound principle, for this reason: the Valuer­General is more or less a clearing-house. If all those appeals go in to the Valuer-General, then he has some basis on which he may exercise his discretionary power to reduce the valuation, ancl this may to some extent obviate an appeal. He could not, of course, come to any such decision unless the appellant was compelled to lay all the factors telating to the appeal before him.

The points raised by hon. members oppo­site up to date do not justify the alarm they have tried to create in the minds of the people interested in the measure. I gathered from their remarks on the introductory stage of the Bill that they •vere quite sympathetic with the purpose of the Bill, anu that they agreed to its principles. I can see now that in the meantime somebody has become alarmed about pastoral leaseholds and other grazing tenures, and a case has been built up.

Mr. Nicklin: The Minister did not tell us anything about them on the introductory stage.

The SECRE'rARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: About w)mt~

lUr. Nicklin: About that provision.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS: Well, the Minister, if I understood him rightly, said the land would be valued on a freehold basis. I think that should convey all that should be required, without going into any discussion.

I have said all I wish to say. I think the Bill will, generally, turn out to be a very good one.

Debate, on motion of Mr. Theodore, adjourned.

The House adjourned at 4.10 p.m.