LAND VALUES AND SALES DEBATED

Grey River Argus, 17 November 1948, Page 4

LAND VALUES AND SALES DEBATED

Opposition Amendments to Government Bill Fail Desire to End Regulation P.A. WELLINGTON, Nov. 16. The House of Representatives tonight discussed in committee the Servicemen’s Settlement and Lana Sales Amendment Bill. , Mr S. G. Holland (Nat., Fendalton) declared that the Opposition intention was to move a nuniber oi amendments seeking to modify the Bill and also the principal Act m important respects. Mr Holland said that they should have a very interesting evening. 1942 VALUES OPPOSED Mr Holland said that there Avas especially among farmers widespread dissatisfaction over the Land Sales Act. Farmers, he claimed, were suffering from a sense of frustration and grave injustice. There Avas no justification in the matter of the price of land, for keeping farmers down to the 1942 standards. The rest of the community, he said, was on 1948 levels. WANTS ACT TO END SOON He said that the Opposition held that the Land Sales Act should terminate next year. They held that, in valuing farms,- full account should be taken of actual buildings. They held that no account should be taken of hypothetical buildings as was proposed in “an absurd book of in-, structions” issued to valuers by the Government. THE MAORI MEMBERS Mr Holland said it was an intolerable situation that the Government was calling; on Maori members . of the House to vote for the application of this legislation to European-own-ed lands, but in another clause, asked European members to specifically exempt Maori lands from provisions of the legislation. Maoris had full equality with Europeans. They must share equal responsibilities. Mr Holland said that those selling town properties must be allowed just replacement value of any houses that they sold, less proper depreciation. MAORI MINISTER IN REPLY Hon. E. T. Tirikatene (Govt., Southern Maori), said that he felt in duty bound to correct the Leader of the Opposition in connection with th? Avay in which he (Mr Holland) had said Maori representatives in the House had! been used, and were being- used. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Nat., Central Otago): Are you going to vote for th? amendment? Mr Tirikatene said that the Maori representatives were wide awake to their responsibilities. Mr S. W. Smith (Nat., Hobson): Opportunities! Mr Tirikatene said that ciuite a large percentage of the Maori people did not buy Maori land, or trade in Maori land, but they did buy and trade in European land and in Crown land. In view of their so doing, he claimed that the Maori representatives had an equal right with their European colleagues to vote as they thought, fit. Mr Smith: As you are told? Mr Tirikatene said that ho himself held titles to European land, which he had purchased, and therefore he felt that he was entitled to vote on this Bill, A great proportion of the Maori people were interested in the Land Sales Court, and in its activities. He felt that the time must come when the whole of the land, both Maori and European, would be placed under one set of conditions. Mr W. H. Gillespie (Nat,, Hurunui): Why not help it along to-night then ? FAMILY OWNERSHIP RESPECTED

I Hon. C. F. Skinner said that several . Opposition speakers had stressed the ’ sunctuy of raniily ownership oi lanci and all members of the House would agree that a farmer should have the ; right to pass land on to his children. “We believe in that, and we will en- . courage it to the utmost,” said the ' Minister. The farmers had said that they were satisfied with the way in which that part of the Act was being ■ administered. “We won’t interfere with genuine family transactions oi any kind,” said Mr Skinner. The Minister added that most of the Maori land was owned on the family basis, and he thought it was reasonable that, just as family transactions in the European-held land were respected by the Government,' so the family transactions in the Maori land should be also entitled to special consideration. WHOSE INCOMES ARE BIGGER? Mr Skinner asked if the Leader of the Opposition was serious in contending in the matter of land prices that farmers were being kept up to the 1942 level. The fact was that incomes of the farmers had increased since 1942 to a greater extent than had the incomes of the workers. What Mr Holland had said was “ridiculous tommy nonsense.” The Government said Mr Skinner was more concerned to-day with the man who bought land to farm it than it was with the 'big landowner. FIRST AMENDMENT 1 An amendment was moved by Mr E B K Gordon (Nat. liangitikei) tu Clause Hight of the Bill. This clause gives statutory effect to the gisting practice, whereby the Meister trains from invoking visions of the principal act in .case oi the sale of a farm from a fathei to his child, if the intends it for side on the land and to faini it ioi his or her own use. Mr Goidon asK od that this be extended » sales by a person to a grandchild under tne Sa M? Skinner n said that the P^ ci Pj® involved was not disputed, and, in any genuine case, the Crown would ; nSr inter vene to take such land comnulsorilv. However, to grje a statu • torv power for a person to sell land t? a grandchild without any reference , to th! needs of the ex-servicemen was to The V amen g dment was defeated by ' 36 votes to 33. NO FIXATION Mr t< j Holyoake (Nat.Pahiatua) i then* moved that Section Fifty-one of fhl principal Act be amended to pro- , vide that such land should not be compulsorily taken where a. farm ; property is offered for sale <hre..t - , an ex-serviceman and w h®f e vendor is not willing to agree to sell at the price fixed by the Land Sales Committee or by the Land Sales Court. The amendment, he said, sought to provide that, in such an <■ event, the vendor of the land could f withdraw his property from sale, unless his contract with the serviceman f provided otherwise. Mr Holyoake said that this principle was already £ being practised. The Opposition j thought that the Minister should £

write it into the law. The amendment was rejected by 36 votes to 33 votes. MAORI LAND EXEMPTION OPPOSED A further amendment was moved by Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Nat. Waitomo) seeking to abolish an exemption of Maori land from provisions of the principal act. This amendment was ruled out of order by the chairman of committees, Mr C. Carr, on the ground that it would involve an appropriation. Mr Holland then moved a further amendment: “That Maori land be made subject to the provision of the principal act on a date to be determined by an order-in-council.” Such an amendment, he said, would not involve expenditure of one penny piece. It would give the House an opportunity it wanted of making a decision on the question, as well as providing a very happy way out or a Government dilemma. Hon. F. Hackett: “How about making it retrospective to 1850?” The chairman of committees, Mr Carr also rejected this amendment. APPRECIATION OF IMPROVEMENTS ! Mr J. R. Hanan (Nat Invercargill) moved another amendment to the effect that, in assessing the value of urban properties, account be taken of the extent to which improvements which were on property at December 15, 1942 (the basic value date) had since appreciated, and of extent to which improvements added after that late had appreciated in value. This amendment also went to a bvision, and it was rejected by 36 votes to 33 votes. Mr T. L. MacDonald (Nat. Wallacel moved a similar amendment in regard to rural land. , The amendment was defeated by the same vote. , x x The Opposition moved yet further amendments before the House rose, bnt the amendments Were all defeated.