Farmers Oppose Crown’s Acquiring Land Compulsorily

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 13, Issue 64, 14 March 1949, Page 4

Farmers Oppose Crown’s Acquiring Land Compulsorily

For some considerable tidae throughout the Auckland ProvirSfi' we have been contesting many in> 1 dividual cases where the Crown. 1 has been desirous of compulsorily acquiring farm properties. To some extent we have been successful but the general policy is one which is so completely baffling that it should bring dismay to every clearthinking New Zealander,” said Mr J. Scott-Davidson, president of the Auckland Province of Federated Farmers in a statement to the press;

“Quite apart from the vast tracts of Crown land in the Auckland Province capable of development and ignoring the fact of inequitable valuation which prevents properties being offered, there are several very disquieting features which call for clarification,” he. continues. h Acquisition Case “In July of 1948 a Land Sales Court decision was given which should be brought to the notice of the public. In this compulsory acquisition case, Khan and Boreham v Crown, Mr,Justice Archer, discussing the section of the Statute which deals with the right of owners to a retention area, said, interalia: “It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to deprive a farmer of the right to claim > a retention area merely because he has other interests of income or because he farms' through the agency of managers, servants or sharemilkers.” “Disregarding the fact that farming is the lone industry in New Zealand which has been singled out for compulsory acquisition, there is a possible inference from this Court decision Does it further narrow down to the fact that by virtue of this decision, which creates a precedent, the Crown is now embarrassed and will concentrate only on those properties which provide the sole source, of incomes to those farming them? “I should also like a public answer from the Rehabilitation Board on one point in respect of their policy. Is it their object to acquire fully developed properties, completely equipped, and as near to the main road as possible? Penalty Of Farming “From the Crown one could ask if the penalty of efficient farming is compulsory acquisition. Also, why are the properties of returned soldiers of both wars being selected for subdivsion. “Admittedly the compulsory acquisition of land is law. No body is more desirous of having ex-Service-men settled than the Federated Farmers, but let us be logical about things. Present methods are slowing up' production and the returned man himself, if he knew the real facts and figures, would be the first to criticise a policy which is hindering his own rehabilitation,” Mr Scott-Davidson concludes.