LAND VALUES DEBATED IN PARLIAMENT

Grey River Argus, 8 October 1948, Page 3

LAND VALUES DEBATED IN PARLIAMENT

PROPOSED COURT IS OPPOSED Mr. Holland Alleges Nationalisation Aim

P.A. WELLINGTON, October 7. He thought that no person would quibble at the objective of the Bill—thi’/.t of providing for greater uniformity in land valuations for various purposes, said the Minister of Lands, Hon. C. F. Skinner, when he moved the second reading of the Land Valuation Court Bill in the House of Representatives to-night. The Minister said that the New Zealand Institute of Valuers had discussed with him, on several occasions since 1945, the desirability of setting up a central Valuation Court. Many competent valuers certainly welcomed the establishment of one Court, which would unify the functions of the various authorities previously engaged in land valuations. VALUERS WANT THE BILL

The Institute of Valuers had asked for this Bill, Mr Skinner said. He hoped, and believed, that the new Court would be just as important to the community as was the Supreme Court. He hoped to see the new Court, made as high as any Court in the land, and he hoped that the people would have confidence in it. He sincerely hoped that this Court would be permanent, and that, with its subsidiary Committees, it would become part of the country’s judicial system. Mr Skinner, replying to an interjection by Mr C. M. Bowden (Nat., Karori) denied that there were terrific arrears in dealing with appeals. The Minister went on to say that thi« Bill was an honest attempt to try and bring uniformity to something which affected the whole economic structure of the country. The importance of the whole question could not be overemphasised, and that was the reason why he wanted to see the Court pan of the judiciary of the country. CRY OF SOCIALISM

Mr S. G. Holland (Nat., Fendalton) described the Bill as “another link in the chain of ultimate Socialism”. !!<■ considered that the use of the title and status of a Supreme Court Judge was being seriously overdone. The Court that the Bill proposed could not possess the complete independence and confidence of the public so long as it existed under the will of a Minister. Mr Holland said that provisions of the present Land Sales Act, based on the 1942 values, were wrong in .principle. The National Party’s policy was that a vendor had a right to what he termed the replacement value of the land that he sold. Air Holland said the Opposition would agree that the returned serviceman should not have to pay for the appreciation of land values that had gone during the war, but. held that neither should the vendor of land have to bear the brunt of it It should be borne by the State, he said. Wakes' had risen by about 2b per cent, since 1942. Those who sold properties to-day should not have their purchasing power reduced by 28 per cent, through being limited to 1942 values. Vendors of land should receive replacement values, less appropriate depreciation for the age of their properties. . Mr Holland said that the Bill aimed ed at ultimate Socialism by stealth. Would it be denied that the Government’s policy was land nationalisation? _ , ... Hon. Mr Skinner: I deny it; A DENIAL

Mr Holland said that, despite the Minister’s denial, it had been clearly stated in former years, by Mr Fraser and by the late Mr Savage, that, the Labour Hartv aimed at nationalisation of land. That policy had never been repudiated. Mr Fraser, in the year 1919, had suggested that land should be bought by the issue of bonds, and that was what was done to buy the Bank of New Zealand and the airways of the country. What was termed a Court would, in fact, be another Government department, obliged to obey the Govei nment s dictates. He said that the jG° vel *;7 ment’s policy was, first,, to hav<? a 1 land valued, preferably by valueis in Government employ. believed that, ultimately, the would pass legislation preventing any sales of land, except to the State, and that when the Government take land, it would do so to an issue of Reserve Bank credit. “TAKE THE LID OFF!”

Mr A. C. Baxter- (Govt., Raglan). The National Party’s policy, if it became the Government, would simply be “Take the lid off and let her go. And, if the Leader of the Opposition bad his way, then land values would be back where they were<lurmg tne land boom in 1919. , . If the people want land values w skyrocket, vote for the National Party, he said. Mr Baxter went on

to say that, through this Bill, a standard system of arriving at land values would be obtained. He considered that 90 per cent, of the contracts drawn up to-day for the sale of land included the clause, “Subject to Land 1 Sales Court value”, and, despite the criticism and the sabotage of the Government by its political opponents, the people had faith in the Land Sales Courts values.

SERVICEMEN'S CHANCES Mr J. Watts (Nat.): One in ten thousand, thats all. . Mr Baxter said that if it were not for the law against land aggregation, not half of the number of the exservicemen who are now settled on land would have been settled. Mr Baxter said that no Bill had ever been brought down which would be appreciated more by the landowners than the Eill now under discussion, lhe hit-and-miss methods of arriving at a 'valuation would be eliminated, and i the Bill would help the Government '.to retain office in 1949. The debate was interrupted by the (adjournment at 10.30,