The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, October 8, 1948. LAND VALUATION COURT

Grey River Argus, 8 October 1948, Page 4

The Grey River Argus FRIDAY, October 8, 1948. LAND VALUATION COURT

JN view of the legislation having been sought by the Institute of Land Valuers, it is difficult to see how the Leader of the Opposition reads into the Land Valuation Court Bill a design for the nationalisation of every acre in the Dominion. Agreeing that the advances in values which have occurred, since 1939 should not have to be paid for by the returned servicemen for holdings, he says that nevertheless those advances should entirely accrue to the holders of land. Otherwise, it is argued, the holders lose 28 per cent, of purchasing power, because values even since 1942

have increased to that extent. Doubtless there has been since the start of the war a continued depreciation in the value of money, but in the case of land values the appreciation, largely through speculative influences, has been greater, or at anyrate would have been very much greater had there been no such means of checking it as have been afforded by the Government’s legislation. Mr Holland’s allegation is based, insofar as it has any colour of credibility upon quotations from speeches of Ministers made more . than a generation since. The legislation for price regulation points in quite the opposite direction, being calculated to make land available in freehold to more people. Without going, perhaps, as far as the Minister in predicating the highest status for the new. Court, it certainly will have a. great responsibility and a great opportunity in stabilising the relation between the people and their most important source of subsistence. There is doubtless a case for drawing a distinction between the fixtures on land and the land itself, and if housing and other things are to-day dearer than six years ago, allowance is to be made for this in assessments. It is not, however, the same thing with land itself, and there is little sense in the National Party talk about the cost of “replacing” land which may be sold by the holder. Its intrinsic value is conferred by nature, and the legislation for price regulation allows for all improvements. Where the fundamental issue arises is with the ciaim of landed interests that speculative increases in value shall without any restriction accrue entirely to land holders merely as holders. It might actually be imagined that holders are more concerned about, what they can obtain by the sale of the land than by the produce of it. For the public weal, the holding of land is far preferable to speculation in land. The object of the Government has always been to have the greatest, degree of utilisation, and as a consequence a closer degree of settlement. When speculation operates constantly to hoist the sales value, neither the one nor the other objective is attainable to the greatest extent. The Minister definitely refuted last nighr the allegation that the regulation of land values is a prelude to the nationalisation of land. It is more, than doubt ful whether any other tenure would afford as good production as the freehold, even allowing for the many cases where Crown leasehold has satisfied very productive farmers for the past forty years. The Labour Member who last night observed that a Nationalist administration would see land values to-day as prohibitive as they were after the First World War had the solid basis of experience as a justification. Such a thing undermines the economic structure of the country, and points to the necessity of at least a certain measure of stability in values which is only obtainable with the assistance of a tribunal such as is provided for by the present Bill.