LAND SALES ACT

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 56, 3 September 1943, Page 3

LAND SALES ACT

QUESTION OF ALARM

MR. C. 0. BELL'S REPLY

"My attention has been drawn to comments and a questionnaire issued by Mr. A. P. O'Shea, Dominion secretary of the Farmers' Union, in reference to my remarks about the Servicemen's Settlement and Land Sales Act as oublished in 'The Post' of August 31," said Mr. C. O. Bell in a statement supplied to "The P.ost" today. "In the first place,. Mr. O'Shea, either by accident or design, quotes the whole of a paragraph from my remarks with the exception of the last sentence, which reads, 'though he, personally disagreed with many of the provisions.' Notwithstanding the qualifying sentence, Mr. O'Shea now asks for my own personal opinion on a series of questions, some of which have nothing to do with the Act under discussion. To satisfy Mr. O'Shea's curiosity as to my personal opinions and to allay the alarm which he and evidently the Farmers' Union feel, I will give my personal views; but they must not in any way be construed as the opinions of the N.Z.R.S.A.

"1. I agree that a decision of a committee under the Act can be a decision of one man, but Mr. O'Shea again, either by accident or design, fails to mention there is a right of appeal. Most of the decisions of the Arbitration Court and of Assessment Courts are virtually decisions of one man, and in the latter case there is no right of appeal, so why the alarm? "2. I do not think it right that a committee can be removed at the whim of this or any Government, and the Act does not provide this. The Land Sales Committees appointed under this Act are appointed to hold office at the pleasure of the GovernorGeneral, Sec. 17 (2). All committees appointed under the Mortgagees and Lessees Rehabilitation Act, the Small Farms Board, the Rehabilitation Board and Council, Armed Forces Appeal Boards, and many others hold office under similar terms. Did Mr. O'Shea or the Farmers' Union object to the method of appointment and removal of these committees and boards, so again why the alarm?

"3. I agree that the committees should have power to disapprove of any person who buys a property, fo» this is the only way to prevent military defaulters, enemy aliens, and land speculators from purchasing houses and farms which have been preserved by the sacrifice of our soldiers and which are required for them on their return. Surely everyone will agree with this.

"Did Mr. O'Shea raise any objection to the appointment of the Aliens Tribunal, Armed Forces Appeal Boards, or Man-power Committees, which deal with the more vital questions of the personal liberty of the subject, and whose decisions in some cases were so serious that they resulted in a man going overseas and making the supreme sacrifice for his country? Is not the question of personal liberty far more serious tyian the question of any interest in lahd? Is the interest in land to be considered more sacred than life? Does Mr. O'Shea value the raiment more than the body?

"4. The amount of land to be retained by a farmer is provided for in clause 23 (1) of the Act and is described as 'land constituting an economic holding and containing the homestead (if any) or at his the farmer's option, any smaller area containing the homestead,' and, further, the land so taken must be for the settlement of servicemen and capable of subdivision into two or more economic holdings. If the area to be retained cannot be agreed upon between the parties, then the matter goes to the Land Sales Court. Again where is the cause for alarm?

"5. I reiterate there is nothing in the provisions of the Act to cause any alarm to home owners. or genuine farmers.

"6. If Mr. O'Shea will endeavour to define 'British legislation and judicial principles' I will endeavour to let him have his answer.

"7. The question of the acquisition of hotels or other business is not relevant as it is not covered by the Act. "In reference to the suggestions made by the Farmers' Union which Mr. O'Shea describes as drastic, I venture to suggest that they were not moved as amendments to the Act by Mr. Poison when invited by Mr. Nash to do so, because they were more alarming to the average farmer than the provisions of the Act itself."