STIR IN HOUSE

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 278, 23 August 1945, Page 8

STIR IN HOUSE

Purchase Of Farm By Labour Official REPLY TO QUESTION The member for Patea must have known perfectly well that the Minister had no power to direct Land Sales Committees. and his question niii-'t have been prompted by some ulterior motive, said the Minister of Lauds. Mr. SKINNER, when replying in the House of-Represeu-taiiveo yesterday to a question by Mr. Sheiit IN. Patea) drawing attention to >i decision bv tlie Wellington Land Sales Committee declining an application from a farmer, who already owned a farm <3 220 acres, for permission to purchase a,«other properly of I IS acres, and asking whether, in view of 111;.' urgent need lor maximum expansion of primary prodmlion. the Minister would instruct comaniiteest to give full consideration to the possible effects on production of any decisions which mmlil prevent farmers from expanding the scope of their operation.-.

In tlie original question tin; name <•! the applicant was given as Kinton Patrick Waleh. Wellington, farmer, but when the question appeared on yesterday's Order Paper the name was excluded b.v direction of tlie Speaker on the ground' that tlie private affairs of an individual outside lhe House should not be mentioned. By agreement, it. was decided, however, that the name could be used in the discussion. Mr. SKINNER said that Land Sales Committee's gave full consideration to the question of undue aggregation of laud when dealing with applications' for consent to transactions where persons already owning land sought to acquire, more. At the time of the application by a company, of. which Mr. Walsh was ,a member, be was already negotiating lhe sale of his existing pro|>erty in the Wairarupa to a returned serviceman, and that sale had since, been completed, subject to the committee’s approval. Had that sale not been delayed, there would have been no suggestion of aggregation by Mr. Walsh. and Mr. Sloat knew that perfectly well. In many cases a number of Opposition members owned more than one farm, and some had offered them for sale to ex-servicemen. The raising of this particular ease showed very poor taste. Mr. SHEAT: Tell u« the full facts about the Wairarapa property. Mr. SKINNER replied that that was a matter for the Land Sales Committee and did not concern the Houoe. Mr. Walsh was acting for relatives when endeavouring to arrange the purchase of tlie second property, which was unsuitable for returned men. Ulterior Motive Denied. Mr. SHEAT objected to the suggestion that he had awked the question from any ulterior motive. (Government laughter.) If Air. AValsh hud not been attempting land aggregation why had the committee rejected his application to purchase the second property? The proper course would have been for the committee to delay its authority till the first farm had been sold. He believed that if a man of wealth, whether a trade union secretary or anyone else, wanted to invest hio surplus money to develop land thereby helping production, be should be allowed to do so. The Minister had represented Mr. AValsh as a magnanimous, patriotc citizen, hut was it not a fact that Air. AVals’h had to get rid of his Wairarapa properly because he had not complied witlt the teems tinder which he had purchased it? AA’as it not “lands for settlement” property, obliging the owner to live ou it? Was he not farming it as an absentee landlord through s'haremilkers? Air. Walsh. had disclosed to the Land Sales Committee that be owned houses in Tauniarunui and that he proposed to sell them if permitted to acquire the new property, but he had failed to indicate that he was negotiating the sale of his Wairarapa farm ns the Alinister now suggested. The fact, was that Air. Walsh was bound to divest himself of the AVairarapa property or live on it.

Air. DOIDGE (N. Taurauga) : Who is this Mr. AValsh? Air. SHEAT said he was one of the big three of the Federation of Labour. He added that if it had been disclosed to the committee that Mr. AValsh was acting on behalf of relatives, then the committee’s rejection, on the ground of attempted aggregation was a wrong one, but it appeared clear that the committee regarded it ns a case of aggregation. Mr. AValsh had had the right of appeal but had not exercised it. Prime Minister’s Defence.

Mr. FRASER (Prime Minister) said the matter was something new in bis experience in the House. It was the first occasion on which the private affairs of a citizen outside the House had been discussed. Mr. Walsh was not a member of the Federation of Labour, but had been for many years a very able and efficient president of the Seamen’s Union. He bad been a member of the Stabilization Commission and had worked day and night without one penny reward in successful endeavours to preserve industrial peace in this country during the war. When lying on what might, have been his death-bed he bad directed a patriotic art union with great success. He had lived on his Wairarapa farm till his duties as a member of the, Stabilization Commission and then bis illness had prevented him from so doing. Mr. FRASER asked if there was anything wrong in Mr. Walsh, acting on behalf of his sister and brother-in-law, who was a returned soldier, when the investment company which was dancing the proposition nsked him. for security purposes, to take some inteerst in the farm, and ho had taken a one-sixth share in it? It was a case of a man who was loyal to his family trying to do something for them. There wore thousands of similar transactions. Personally, he would never have dreamed of bringing such a matter before’ the House, Question of Precedent.

Mr. POLSON, (N. Stratford) said that when the question was first raised members had regarded it as a good joke, and there had even been laughter from the Government benches. What interested him now was the anger of the Prime Minister when any reference was made to a leader of the Labour movement..

Mr. FRASER: It is when 1 sec anything contemptible. Mr. POLSON replied that the Opposition had had to put up with attacks on innocent citizens. There was the attack by the Minister of Works on Mrs. Stone, who bad been unable to reply. If names were not to be mentioned in the House, then Ministers should observe the same rule, and the Prime Minister could have set a much better example than he had done. He did not consider anything was to be gained by dismissing the matter further.

TENDERS TOO HIGH Wellington South Post Office Tenders lor the erection of a new pos' office building at Wellington South (Newtown) were called early Illis year, but were declined as being excessive, slated tiie Acting-Postmaster General. Mr. JONES, replying to a question by Mr. McKeen 11... Wellington South). Meanwhile, i' had been found desirable to amend the plans to some extent, and this involved their partial redraugbtiiig. It was hoj.ed Io have this work com pleted at an early dale ami to have fresh tenders calk'd. In regard to the Island Ba.; post office, a silo was recently acquired, ami the proposed building would be included in tiie department's proposed .building programme. Regarding telephone exchanges a! Wellington South • and Island Bay. buildings entirely separate from the new post ollieo buildings proposed at these places were necessary. The Island Bay exchange building was ir, course of erection. ami plans for the Wellington South exchange building were in course of preparation.