FARMERS OBJECT TO COMPULSORY TAKING OF LAND

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 13, Issue 68, 23 March 1949, Page 5

FARMERS OBJECT TO COMPULSORY TAKING OF LAND

Much-discussed “Clause 51” that new law which permits the compulsory acquisition of land for settlement by the Government, was under fire again at yestei-day’s meeting of the Bay of Plenty Sub-Provincial executive of Federated Farmers (Auckland Province) when the president, Mr R. W. Dunning, stated that the stand the Auckland Province was taking was that 1942 values were an unfair basis for present-day deals, that while land was being farmed in grass by the Government no other land should be taken for settlement and that, while there was vacant land capable of development, *the Government should not take further

developed lands compulsorily. Strong opposition to the principle of that part of the Land Settlement Act was being voiced when someone asked if it really was as bad in actual practice as it looked on paper. For instance, had there been any land so acquired in the Bay of Plenty?

Mr Dunning assured the questioner that there had been a considerable amount in the Auckland Province, some at Rotorua, and even seme in this district. “Unless we persue a defensive policy,” he said, “you can be sure there will be more.” Will Law Change?

He. added that it did not look as thbugh the Dominion executive of the Federation was going to take a strong stand and he said he had heard it from Opposition Members of Parliament, that it was not the Opposition’s intention to alter the Act materially if it became the Government. Others present disagreed with that view. They quoted definite assurances from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland and from Mr F. W. Doidge, M.P., , that Clause 51 would be wiped right out. Mr Duning said he sincerely hoped that was so, but he had been led to believe otherwise. He added there was an increasing demand for land to be made available for settlement but unless there were drastic changes in the cost factor of breaking in country, considerable pressure from rural groups would be required to get the law altered.

A delegate expresed the opinion that the offending clause meant nothing less than nationalisation of land and disinheritance.

“That’s why we’re fighting it,” rejoined Mr Dunning.