LANDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS

Evening Star, Issue 22465, 9 October 1936, Page 13

LANDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS

FICTITIOUS VALUE GIVEN BY IMPROVEMENTS “ SQUEEZING MONEY FROM NATION " GOVERNMENT'S PREVENTIVE BILL [l'kom Odr Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, October 8. The miniature Public Works Bill included in the Finance Bill aroused strong comment from the Opposition when the measure was considered by the House to-night. This clause, occupying a whole page, set out the conditions under which compensation is payable in respect of lands taken for public works. _ . . It was explained by the Minister of Finance that it became necessary owing to the decision of the court in recent cases, which reversed the long-stand-ing principle that compensation should be payable on the basis of value of the land before public works increased land values in the neighbourhood. He had an instance of one block of land where the court awarded slightly less than three times its value, simply because of the State spending so much moneyin the district. Mr Coates: The poor State. Mr Nash asked if anyone could say it was right that the owner of land worth £SOO, because the Government carried out a public work, should get £5,000 for that area? Should he take £1,500 of public money for no service whatever? Nobody had the right to hold the community up to ransom in this way, and filch from the public funds. Mr Coates, who strongly protested against important changes in law being put through Parliament without proper time for consideration, referred particularly to this change in compensation for taking land. It was a far-reach-ing amendment, which should have been referred to the Law Society and to the judges for their opinion. Air Semple (Minister of Works) stated that the clause under discussion was actually drafted on au instruction from the former Minister of Works, Air Bitcbener. For 46 yeans the principle had always applied that when land was taken under the Works Act the court assessed it at the existing market value. Then law was tested by the Tawa Central Company, Wellington, and the Court of Appeal held that the land was to be assessed at its value after improvements had been earned out. ~ , , If there had been no railway deviation to Tawa Flat, said the Minister, the value of the land taken in that caae would have been £BOS, and that was what the Crown was entitled to pay. Mr Coates; Is that fair? Air Semple: Yes, postitively and definitely fair. All that the owner of the land is entitled to is the market value of his land. Mr Coates: But his neighbour gets the benefit. .... Mr Semple: He is not entitled to squeeze money out of the nation for something he never earned. The judgmentof the court wob that, instead of being awarded £865, the. company received from the. State £2,100. That was the value assessed by the court, and it was a fictitious, false value._ Air Coates: A unaniriftus decision. Atr Semple said it was not a unanimous decision, but if it had been it was wrong, fundamentally wrong. The Minister said be remembered an election not long ago when there was the slogan, “ Follow England,” and the clause in the Bill was in line with the English law. Mr Semple read the instructions given to the law draftsman by Air Bitchener, when Alinister of Works, to prepare a clause putting the position right. The clause was ultimately drafted in a Bill prepared by the late Government. Mr Coates: Aha 1 But what happened t 6 it? Air Semple said there Was another case coming on, and it was necessary to have legislation to save the State being robbed. The Government was taking over a building in Maginnity street, Wellington, aiid if the present law was allowed to exist the Government would have to pay thousands of pounds to private landowners for something they never created. The clause that the Opposition was opposing, and attempting to ridicule in a feeble kind of way. Was a clause written by themselves and put into a Bill. . Mr Coates: Nonsense! Absolutely incorrect. . “The right honourable gentleman is a good judge of nonsense.” retorted the Minister. He added that he had the draft of the previous Government s Bill.- . • Mr Coates: Did the previous Government annrove of it? The Alteister: The Bill was drafted and stands in their name. It was drafted, he said, on tlio suggestion of the heads of thq_ department to save the nation being “ rooked ” of thousands of pounds by speculators. Air Coates: The poor little land owners. The Minister: I would rather be a poor little lamb than a blatant donkey. (Laughter.) He wanted to be protected against that sort of thing. Air Coates: Protected from a few land owners. Very brave that!