8.—17b.

104

[j. P. LUKE.

previous year, there would be a greater amount of money taken out of the people for rating purposes. 2 on £17,000,000 would produce one sum and 2 T Ljd. on £19,500,000 would give another sum, and that has to come out of the people. 26. Are the rates this year higher or lower in the pound than they were last year? —They are just the same in the pound, but they bring in a great deal more money. 27. What w r as the reason why, seeing that the valuations were increased by such a very large amount, the rate in the pound was not reduced ?—That is a matter on which there is a difference of opinion. I might say that my view was that we should strike a rate such as would produce an income about equal to the amount of money we received the previous year, but that proposal was not agreed to. 28. If your view had been carried into effect the ratepayers would have no complaint to make of the increase in valuations, so far as the rates are concerned. Their sole objection, if they had one at all, would be to the increase in the land-tax? —So far as that.is concerned, the position is that I am not here complaining about the rates at all. I am here more particularly to say there is a general discontent with the system of assessment, and I have suggested what I consider would be a remedy for it. My comparison between Auckland and Wellington is that the Commissioners may see that in the relative systems of rating mentioned there is little or no difference regarding the amount to be paid by the ratepayer. 29. Is it not a fact that a great many people complain of the increase in valuation because it involves a consequent increase in rates? —Of course. A greal many people say the increase in valuations is too high. 30. The increase is not, a very great item, except in the case of very large holdings?— This hits every one more or less. The most critical person we have to deal with is the man who has had his rates raised by only a'few shillings. 31. That, may be, but you will agree with me that the main objection people have to the increase of the valuations is that it involves them, as a rule, in an increase in their rates?— That is so, generally. 32. If the view you proposed had been adopted by the City Council, then does it not, follow that the. main objection of the Wellington people to the increase in valuations would have been removed? —No. It is one of those difficult questions to answer. I have met men who did not want to sell, and they said the valuation was too high, whilst there are property-holders who want to sell, and there is strong support of the Valuation Department from them. 33. My point is this : that the real objection that a great many of these people have is not so much to what the Valuation Department do, but as to what the local bodyr does in the face of an increase in the valuation? —The difficulty in that is that there is differentiation in valuation, and you cannot differentiate in rates. 34. But you were overruled by the City Council? —Yes, they wanted the same rate. 35. That was done with the full knowledge that the valuations had been increased.?—' Yes. 36. You say that there was a big increase in the valuations in Wellington : is it not a fact that the bulk of that increase, if not the whole of it, was in what may be called the business area?— Some Of the suburbs got considerable increases, and some were lowered. 37. The bulk of it was in the business area? —Largely in the centre of the city, yes. 38. It has been suggested, I need not say by whom, that the City Council sent the City Solicitor down to the Assessment Court for the express object of helping to boost up the values of the properties. Is that a fair suggestion? —No. He was not sent there for any such thing. The City Solicitor is there to interpret the intention of the City Council. I have been connected with the City Council for fifteen years, and never heard it suggested at any time that the CityCouncil desired to have high values maintained. Charles Manley Luke examined. I. The Chairman.] What is your position, Mr. Luke? —I, am a director of Luke Company (Limited), and President of the Central Chamber of Commerce. Wellington. I desire to speak about the constitution of the Assessment Court more particularly. A good deal of the ground 1 intended to cover has been covered by Mr. Tripp and others who gave evidence at an earlier stage of the Commission. My objection to the constitution of the Court is that the objectors have no means at all of voicing themselves other than by evidence that they may bring forward, and that they feel that the Court is, consciously or unconsciously, a biased Court. The two assessors are often gentlemen who are identified either with dealings in land or interested in the keeping up of (he values of property. Especially has that been the case, without mentioning any particular Court, in one .or two of the Courts in recent years, I had no idea what the view of my brother (Mr. J. P. Luke) was as to tho reform of file constitution of the Court. I came here with my own idea of what I consider would be an improvement in the Court, and that is that the Court should be presided over by the senior Magistrate or a Judge, if that is possible, and that the taxing department, with the City Council or local body, should agree between themselves as to one of the assessors, and that the taxpayer:; and ratepayers together should have the privilege and right of appointing the other assessor. A Court, for assessment, purposes should be based on the principle of arbitration., so that the interests of both parties will receive that, consideration which is due to the parties. In our Court as at present constituted the two assessors are appointed, one by the Government taxing department and (lie other by the local taxing department. Each goes there feeling that it is his duty, as a servant of the Crown or of the local body, to maintain as far as possible the valuations of the Department. I am sure that feeling will not be allayed until some reformation takes place. lam not prejudiced against the scheme propounded by the Mayor. It is an improvement on the Court as now constituted, but Ido see the difficulty of such a Court dealing with small country districts. Even those difficulties