8.—17b.

112

[P. W. FLANAGAN.

If that return is carefully studied it will show, instead of a disposition to regard the Assessment Courts as unpoular, that, considering the large amount by wdiich the value of land has increased during recent years, the Assessment Courts are—if one might use the expression—more popular than they have ever been. So far as Assessment Courts' decisions are concerned it is not the objector who has been at a disadvantage ; it is really the State. I have certain cases in my mind's eye where reductions were made by the Assessment Court not really because a reduction was due, but really to show that it was not a matter of impossibility to come to the Court and obtain a reduction. The history of the Court itself shows, too, that the constitution of the present Court has not been regarded with disfavour by the public. Prior to 1900 the Assessment Court under the Government Valuation of Laud Act and under the Rating Act consisted of one member called the Judge of the Assessment Court, and who, under the former Act, was the Magistrate for the district, and under the latter Act was either the Magistrate for the district or " such other fit person as the Governor shall appoint." The Court in each case was clearly a judicial Court set up to fix valuations on the evidence brought before' it. In 1900 two assessors, appointed by the Governor, were added to the. Court set up under the Government Valuation of Land Act, the intention doubtless being to give the Court the benefit of the expert knowledge of these two lay members —knowledge which the Magistrate alone could not be expected to have acquired. The Court still preserved its judicial character. In 1906 the constitution of the Court was altered by allowing one of the assessors to he nominated by the local authority whose district was being revised. Landowners welcomed the amendment as giving them direct representation on the Court. The Court as constituted, however, does not suit certain objectors, who now claim the right to appoint oik; assessor themselves. In other words, they want a Court, of Arbitration rather than an Assessment Court. Their belief is that a greater percentage of reductions would result. They, however, ignore the rights of non-objectors, whose lands are valued on the same relative basis of unimproved values, and who are financially concerned in having the roll values relatively uniform. It is doubtless to preserve uniformity that the Act places the onus of proof on the objector. Any alteration in the direction sought would only tend to unduly increase the number of objections lodged, and to interfere, with the judicial nature of the Court, with the result that the dissatisfaction which at, present exists would extend to non-objectors. The amendment to the Rating Act in 1910 altered the constitution of the Assessment Court under that Act to agree with the Court as constituted under the Valuation of Land Act, with the provision that where two assessors are appointed at, the request of the local authority the local authority is lesponsible for paying both assessors' fees. That very change in the constitution of the Court under the Rating Act shows that in the opinion of local authorities who rate on annual value, at any rate, the constitution of the Court under the Government Valuation of Land Act is a perfectly fair one. I had intended, in connection with this matter, making a suggestion to the Commission to the effect that the Court as constituted at present does not quite fulfil all that is required of it, not because of any defect in the personnel of the Court. Ido not suppose you will find in any Court in the country —I speak of the Government assessors —a body of men better qualified for their duties, or who bring their ability to bear on their duties more efficiently than they do. This country owes a debt of gratitude to the assessors, but I can see that so long as the constitution of the Court remains as it is so long will there be objections to the decisions of the Court. I have come to the conclusion that the Chairman of the Court should be a permanent, officer and a barrister, and there should be associated with him two other officers, both appointed by the Crown. These officers would he experts in landvalues —not necessarily experts in local values, because I do not consider it necessary that an assessor should be required to have local knowledge of land-values. Being permanently in the position the assessor would be continually in the atmosphere of vatues, he would become conversant with the Valuation of Land Act and the methods of the Department, and accustomed to weigh evidence of values. Now, the question that probably would deter the Commission from adopting my suggestion is, " How would it be possible for a permanent Court of that nature to conduct all the valuations required by the Department?" This point was referred to this morning in connection with the suggestion of the Mayor of Wellington. 1 personally am of the opinion that the valuations could be so arranged that the services of one Court would suffice for the whole of the assessment work throughout New Zealand. There is only a portion of the Dominion revalued during twelve months, and it is not necessary that the Court should sit within any special period. The Court might sit, say, from April up till August or September. Within five months it would be quite possible for a permanent Court to do all the work of the present Assessment Courts without any inconvenience to the Department, and it would also be possible for such a Court to visit, as many localities, or perhaps more, than are covered by Assessment Courts under existing conditions. The itinerary of the Court could be arranged so as to sit in far-back localities. I believe a Court such as I suggest would meet with the confidence of the public. It would be a, strong Court, and I have come to tho conclusion that the Assessment Court, to carry weight with the public, must, be a strong Court. There is a, disposition on the part of a targe number of objectors to pay no attention to the Court. Often, after acknowledging the notices sent to them, they will not attend the Court. They will take no action with regard to values until they receive notice from the Land Tax Department or from the local rating office that their taxes or rates have been increased. If the Assessment Court was strengthened, the class of person who dares to-day to assail the existing Court would not dare to do so under the new conditions. The strengthening of the Assessment Court is a matter which has a close connection with the privilege which is allowed owners under section 31 of the Valuation of Land Act. Any person not thoroughly a-u fait, with the working of the Act would come to the conclusion that section 31 was a section inserted in the interest of the Ordinary settler of the country. Such is not the case. My experience of the working of section 31 is that those