I suggest that such a commission is desirable in this particular instance. I am an independent farmer Deputy who has never been too closely identified with any particular Government. I have never been enthusiastic about commissions. They are regarded for the most part as a means of shelving awkward problems. But in this particular instance the problem is so wide and there are so many issues involved, it is essential there should be an investigation. Within the past few months cases have been brought to my notice where valuations have been increased by 300 per cent. In one particular instance the valuation of a business premises in this city was increased in the past few weeks from £60 to £200 simply because some painting and decorating had been carried out on the particular premises. In another instance the valuation was increased from £70 to £170. That was a very remarkable increase in valuation. That is an increase of 100 per cent. It would not appear to indicate very extensive investigation of detail. In one particular town with which I am familiar practically every house was revalued within the last year and valuations were increased in many cases by 300 per cent.
These increases seem to indicate that there is a general drive towards increasing valuations. I do not know why that should be at the present time. One would imagine that rates are sufficiently high without forcing up valuation at the same time. There is a neck-to-neck race between rates and valuation. If the Minister will consider the matter he will see that there is a very strong case for investigation. For the past 100 years there has been no inquiry into rating. The legislation which governs rating is over 100 years old. In the course of that period a wide variation in practice has taken place in regard to assessing valuations. I assume that the Minister may say in reply that valuations generally are not as high as they might be under existing legislation and that the valuation officials are behaving very generously towards the ratepayers.
That raises a good many questions. It raises the question as to how the valuation authorities act and who initiates proceedings for increasing valuations. We know that if a local authority cares to close its eyes a ratepayer may escape an increase in his valuation. That raises the question then as to whether pressure or inducements may be brought to bear on officials to close their eyes to improvements that are carried out.
We know that the rating authorities can institute proceedings to have valuations increased where no improvements have been carried out at all. They can revise valuations from year to year. When we consider the disparity between the valuation of one particular type of property and another and the disparity between one particular premises and another, we must see that there is need for investigation of the whole matter. I know one particular case in which a ratepayer built two identical houses side by side. He let one of them at a rent and a valuation was fixed upon it. Before he had the other ready—he required it for himself — it was inspected. The premises which he had let and which were completely finished were assessed at a lower valuation than that imposed on the premises which were not fully completed although the two were of the same size. There was a disparity of £10 between the two valuations. How can the Minister account for the haphazard manner in which valuations are fixed? Surely there is need for an inquiry into this whole matter? Of course, it would be absolutely foolish to set up a commission of inquiry to deal only with the question of valuation.
The whole system under which local authorities act would need to be investigated. The whole system under which services are allocated as between the local authorities and the central authority would need to be investigated. The whole system under which grants are made available to local authorities and under which they are allocated would also need to be investigated, so that the citizens of this country would be in a position to put up a case against the injustices being inflicted upon them.
We know that the burden on the ratepayers has increased very considerably in the past ten years. We know that the Minister and his officials might make the case that there is nothing strange about that since costs generally have increased. Why is it then that the ratepayers are feeling so aggrieved? The answer is that the middle classes of this country are being completely crushed by rising costs. That, I think, is the real reason why there has been so much discontent and why there is a growing discontent in regard to the burdens imposed on ratepayers generally. Therefore, I think the Minister—although his "no" to my question to-day had a slightly Molotovish flavour—ought to consider this whole matter.
I do not believe in long-sitting commissions. I would be inclined to put a time limit upon a commission appointed in this connection. I believe that a commission composed of earnest people who are prepared to go into this matter fully would be able to give the Minister a comprehensive report within six months or nine months at the most so that before the next financial year he would be in a position to have the whole situation reconsidered. Let it be clearly understood that no investigation designed to bring about a general increase in valuation would be either desirable or possible. If we want to equalise valuations we must equalise them by reducing them to the level of the lowest valued property. Any general increase in valuations would act as an incentive to local authorities to raise the rate, since the rate in the £ would be reduced by higher valuations. Therefore, I think the first task of this commission would be to suggest ways and means by which the whole standard of valuations could be reduced and stabilised. I think stabilisation is very important. It is no inducement to the progressive farmer or to the progressive business man to improve his buildings if he knows that in the course of a few years, or even of a few months in some cases, his valuation will be increased and his rates increased accordingly. The minister will be doing very useful work and work which will be appreciated by the ratepaying community generally if he causes a public and comprehensive inquiry to he held into the whole system of rates, local expenditure and valuations.
That, I think, is the demand which is embodied in my question and it is a demand which the Minister ought to reconsider.
