LAND SALES BILL

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 32304, 25 August 1943, Page 5

LAND SALES BILL

MR SUTHERLAND’S APPEAL POSTPONEMENT URGED LEGISLATION NOT NEEDED “I repeat, that already on the Statute Book is all the legislation the Government needs, but obviously the aim of this Bill is the realisation of the Labour party’s objective—the socialisation of the means of production,” said Mr A. B. Sutherland, M.P. for Hauraki, when speaking in the second reading debate on the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Bill in the House of Representatives. Mr Sutherland said he had found a. general desire for the Bill to be postponed until it was fully considered. A Government speaker had said that he was not interested in whether the soldiers got the freehold or the leasehold, but Mr Sutherland said that at a big Sunday night meeting in Hamilton, ■attended mostly by returned soldiers, a resolution demanding the freehold was carried. Rehabilitation

Mr Sutherland said that in regard to rehabilitation he stood firmly on the basis of seeing the returned servicenien rehabilitated so that they would be as well off as, or preferably better off than they were before they went away. The values of lands and homes must be stabilised and he agreed with the principle of returned men acquiring homes or suitable land at fair values, that was, so that after meeting their commitments they would have enough left to live decent lives.

He said that first, the Government should make a complete survey of all ■Crown lands; there were still large areas of such land close to good areas and close to the amenities of life. The returned men would need tuition in the art of farming, and should be given an opportunity on training farms and in training centres. Develop the Land

They should be given an opportunity of assisting in the development of some of this land, and after the land was developed they could be allotted a section on the block they wished. Homes and buildings could be erected on those areas in advance and while the men were doing the job they could be paid standard rates of pay. There were other areas which the Government was farming and on those there were homesteads that could be allotted to soldiers after they came back from the war.

After a survey of land had been made and the land had been subdivided and buildings erected other land then could be examined. He believed that if land could not be procured at its productive or basic value, the State should pay the difference. Returned soldiers should be settled on land at the productive value, and no more, and if there was a balance over that price, the nation should pay the balance. Property Holders’ Rights

The Government should not. under the cloak of rehabilitating the soldiers, undermine the rights of property holders. Ex-servicemen did not wish to be rehabilitated at the expense of the individual.

Under the Bill all land would be taken at values existing in December. 1942. No increase would be allowed after that date, and the basic value of any farm taken after that date would be on the productive value. The prices of dairy produce would be taken into account as at December 15, 1942, and the costs would be similarly regarded, and ye.t it was common knowledge that while the prices for primary produce between the years 1938 and 1942 remained arbitrarily fixed, costs were allowed to soar. Would it be equitable to base the value of dairying land on 1938 prices and 1942 costs ? The 'Government should pay the difference between the productive and market values. Protest Meetings Mr Sutherland referred to protest meetings held in the country over the Bill and quoted a meeting held by the Waikato branch of the Farmers’ Union, which has 2090 members, protesting against the measure. “I urge the Government to postpone this Bill so that people may have an opportunity of studying it. It is unwise at the present time to bring down contentious legislation. People are uneasy about this measure, and the democratic way is to postpone its passage until after the general election by which time its provisions will have been given more mature consideration.” SHOULD NOT BE RUSHED LAND SETTLEMENT BILL “I think the county should oppose it for it appears to give the Government the right to take oyer any land

it likes at its own valuation,” said Cr. W. C. Kennedy in bringing up the subject of the Land Settlement Bill at Monday’s meeting of the Piako County Council.

The chairman (Cr. D. Johnson) said he had not seen a copy of the Bill and thought such a motion as suggested too This opinion was concurred with by others at the table. Cr. D. J. Burgess then moved that a letter be written to the Minister asking that the Bill not be rushed through before the people had time to discuss it. This was carried.