MR ALGIE THINKS LAND SALES WAS GOOD IDEA

Grey River Argus, 14 October 1948, Page 3

MR ALGIE THINKS LAND SALES WAS GOOD IDEA

P.A. WELLINGTON, Oct. 13. In the House of Representative.: to-day, Mi- R. M. Algie (Nat. Remuera), continuing the adjourned debate on the second reading Of the Land Valuation Court Bill said that no evidence had been given that there was a popular demand for the Bill. There was no evidence of any evil, that needed the redress the Crown was now seeking to give. The existing system was working well, and had given public satisfaction, and the protection that was required. The new system was weighted heavily in favour 1 of the Crown, and, in the new system, the people who were to do the deciding, were appointed by the Crown, to carry ou< the policy of the Government. In the new system, the Crown could not lose, and another name lot the Bill, which, while facetious, would still be correct, was the Minister’s double-headed penny Bill. Hon. F. Langstone (Govt. Roskill):“ Do you want the Crown to lose?”

Mr Algie: “Certainly .not, bu what I do want is fair play.” Mr Algie asked if the Bill was a means o: the socialisation of land by stealth The objective of the Labour Party was socialisation of the land, and it would be peculiar if the Government disavowed that policy. Mr Langstone: “It’s not ashamed of this Bill. CROWN VALUERS Mr D. C. Kidd (Nat. Waitaki), said that if he was not mistaken, the da was not far distant when the Gov ernment would introduce legislate making Government valuers the on ly recognised land valuers, thereb taking a further step toward ultimate nationalisation of the land. Mr R. Walls (Govt. North Dune din), said that all land sales com mittees had been free of Governmental influence. He believe' that there were now fewer appeal against land sales valuations than formerly. The people were coming t realise that they would not exploit land values, and at auction sales properties were now being knocked down at approximately fixed values instead of the bids going up to fictitious levels. CROWN’S RIGHTS Mr I-I. E. Combs (Govt. Onslow) said that those who held land tenures to-day, and thought they could be passed on to their heirs, must readjust their ideas. Mr S. W. Smith (Nat. Hobson): This is it—a Disinheritance Bill.

Mr W. H. Gillespie (Nat. Hurunui): Will the stock and station agents be next? Mr Smith: Will you apply it to businesses?

Mr Combs said that, in the interests of New Zealand, farmers who to-day held more land than they needed for their* l own use, must be prepared to have it sub-divided. A» the population increased, the suodivisions would have to be smaller than ever before. Mr Combs said the Bill was a step forward, and was as near to giving the necessary author ity for the Crown to acquire land, on fair terms, as it was possible to get Mr Gillespie: If the Honourable Member owned land, ne would be speakino- differently. Mr Combs said there were other acts giving the Crown the right to acquire land for the betterment of New Zealand. The Government’s aim was to acquire land, at its economic value. Present!v it would be settling neople, other than returned servicemen on the land. Fie hoped the daj would come when we would have more settlers on the land. A HINT! Mr A. S. Sutherland (Nat. Hauraki) said that the reference by M. Combs to the need for recasting o ideas abom. passing of land on tc one’s heirs was the first hint of the Disinheritance Bill. Mr R. G. Gerard (Nat. Ashburton?. A legalised steal. Mr Sutherland said Mr Combs had spilt the beans. When the Government, through this Bill, liad brougut land values into line, it would bi ready for the introduction of a disinheritance Bill.

An Oppposition voice: ‘They prefer to do it this way. Mr Sutherland said that when th .- Bill went through, everything woul be lined up for the socialisation o, land and we could then look for a Disinheritance Bill, if it were thought necessary. Not. justice, but Government policy would guide th Land Valuation Court ip its worn The Bill was a definite move towart. socialisation, and the confiscation oi privately-owned land in New Zealand, and toward the placing of al; land under the heel of a Socialist Government. The Bill, by making inCourt a permanent feature, was a breach of faith by the Governmeni which earlier had said that the Land Sales legislation was only a temporary Bill. It was another step by the Government to rob the farmer of the freehold of his land. The Prime Minister had said that only persons al ability would be appointed to Land Sales Committees, yet the present Bill gave no assurance that persons of ability would be appointed to th.. Court. There had, in the past, been appointments to Land Sales Committees of political cast-oils. Mr Sutherland said the Bill restricted the right of people to go to the Supreme Court, and was a resurrection of the Labour F'arty’s 1919 land policy. misrepresented

When Mr Sutherland finished his speech, Air Combs, rising to a point of order, said he had been misrepresented by Mr Sutherland. “The member lor Hauraki said I had said that those who want to pass on their land to their heirs will have to recast their ideas, and that this foretold the appearance of a disinheritance bill, what 1 said was that the valuations for gift and death duty purposes should be on the same basis as valuations of land taken for public woiks and other purposes,” said Mr Combs. HYMN OF FEAR AND HATE

Mr Langstone said the Opposition’s attitude to the Bill was to utter a hymn of fear and hate, but, actually, the Bill would bring about economy with efficiency and uniformity, with reality. Mr Langstone said the day was not far distant when land values, created by the community, would remain with' the community, and the time had come when, as legislators, members in the House, should give consideration to community created VcIIUCS Mr J. T. Watts (Nat. St Albans) said that Government spokesmen, including the Minister when he introduced the Bill, had made clear that the Government, if it had its way, would make the land sales control system permanent. Mr Watts said the Government would patrol the sale of farms, houses and sections, as long as it remained in office.

Government voices: “What’s wrong with that?” Mr Watts said the Land Sales Act, when introduced, was to remain operative for five years, but the Government had not yet indicated its intention of repealing that statue. The Bill was an example of an in-

stalment of Socialism, introduced by subterfuge. A MOCK COURT? The Land Valuation Court would not be a judicial court, but rather a mock court. The fundamental right of citizens to appeal to the highest court in the land was denied by the bill. Dr A. M. Finlay (Govt. North Shore), said the Opposition was putting up a good fight, but only against their own imaginations. Dr Finlay said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) had twice told the country that the Government intended to nationalise land, and now he seemed to be deceived by his own propaganda. Although nothing in this bill did anything towards the nationalisation of the land, the Leader of the Opposition still insisted on saying that it did. NO NEW POWERS Dr Finlay said that no new powers were given by the bill, yet the Opposition had read into the measure, a threat of confiscation of land. The nearest parallel to the pic-sun

was set up by the preceding Government in the form of a Court of Review in 1936 under the Mortgagors' and Lessees’ Rehabilitation Act, and the Adjustment Commission, which did nothing but carry out Government policy. Air W. A. Bodkin (Nat. Central Otago): “There was a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. Dr Finlay said that the real purpose oi toe Shi was net io uie people an auvamayc uvcp a sinaii ciass oi citizens, umC io protect the people rrorn the briitai nana or mriacion. If the basis oi our economy became tne oasis ror speculation, then u was aesiraoie to avoid iiuciuatioru m land vaiues, he adaeu. Air K. J. Holyoake (Nat., Pahiatua) said that ii inilation was at the root of the trouble, as suggested by tne member lor North Shorn, wn_> aid me Government not tackle that problem. ivir Holyoake said that, in 1945 the Labour Party comerence asked me government to consider lavourabiy me establishment of collective rarms. Hon. W. E. Parry: “There ' was nothing wrong with that!” Mr HolyoaKe asnea it this Bill was jntended to confer on the Government the initial powers lor establishing state or collective farms. r . , Government voices; “Whicn clause?” ivir Holyoake said the Government would do no good by dispossessing peoole ol their land. Air M. Moohan: “Who is doing that?” , . Air MacDonald (Govt, r onsonby). “It's a myth!” Mr Hoiyoakc said that but for the vigour of the Opposition, and oi some organisations outside the House, land would have been fully nationalised before now. Mr A. G. Osborne (Govt., Onehunga): “Just bunk!” Air Holyoake said that il tne Government had its Way—and this Bill was one of the means ol giving it its way—the property owners . and land owners would cease to exist m this country. There would be no snooting, as there was in Kussia, but in an economic sense, property owners would be eliminated.

NO DISINHERITANCE NOW Mr Moohan said the Government had not dispossed a single person ol his land, home, or business. On the contrary, it had rehabilitated thousands of people to the farms homes and businesses, from uhicn thcj were evicted by the very policy advocated by the Opposition. . Mr W J- Broadfoot (Nat., Waitomo said the Bill made major alterations in the present law. he owner of land was to oe sacrificed on the altar of uniformity. . Uniformity might be obtained, but justice would be flouted. The legislation was directed in the main, at the farm lands of the Dominion. The debate was interrupted at 10.31) p.m. for the adjournment until 2.30 pm.’ to-morrow.