A PROFIT OF £70.000

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 2025, 6 September 1919, Page 3

A PROFIT OF £70.000

ON A WAR PERIOD LAND DEAL*,

In the Legislative Council debate upon the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Loans Bill, the, Hon. W. J. Geddis gave “an example of profiteering in land.” Within a few miles of Napier there wg,s an estate used for sheepfarming, called Waipunga. It was acquired within the period of the war by a gentleman who was in possession of a great deal of money, and who understood something about farming. Realising the demand that had been created, he conceived the idea of cutting up the land, and from this he made a profit of. £70,000. The point which concerned Mr Geddis most was that some of the people who bought that laud were returned soldier’s. He put it to the Council whether it was right for that man to load each of those sections with unearned increment, seeing that the people who were taking the land were men who had been away serving the Country. He was also struck by the fact that the bill which the Leader of the Council had submitted was a bill to enable us to borrow £12,500,000 for the purpose of supplying land for soldiers. He hoped it might not: hapi'pen to put a large amount of profit into the pockets of land speculators and large land-owners. M hen our soldiers flocked to the colours, perhaps to make the supreme sacrifice, the expectation was held out that land would be waiting for them when they returned to this country, on which land they could settle and ■achieve prosperity. He would ask: “Are we giving them any .land at all f ” The policy pursued in the last three years had loaded the land, and a fall iii prices would mean failure and insolvency.

Sir Francis Bell: Not insolvency,

Mr Geddis said lie thought it was the duty of this country to provide land at pre-war prices for soldiers. There was power for the Government to take land compulsorily. That provision had never been put into operation. The Government had circularised each land-owner, asking if they were prepared to sell, and at what price. He said it was the duty of the Government to take the land. He did not mean expropriate it, hut take if at a fair price. He agreed with what had been said against food profiteers, but we should he equally against laud profiteers. An lion, member: Was it the Government who bought that properly you spoke off Mr Geddis said it was not the Government who bought thg land, hut ihe properly, was heavily loaded, and the crime was just as groat. Tim best of all met bods to provide land at reasonable prim's under this scheme (which be cordially approved) was the method of taxation on land values.