MAN AND WIFE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 789, 9 October 1929, Page 6

MAN AND WIFE

JOINT OWNERSHIP OF LAND CLAUSE IN BILL QUERIED THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Tuesday. One point in the Lands Laws Amendment Bill for which Reform members pressed for an explanation in the committee stages of the Bill in the House tonight was that concerning land held by a man or his wife. The Bill provides that this land shall be deemed to be held jointly, and not separately, so that aggregation by both parties may be prevented. The Minister of Lands, the Hon. G. \V. Forbes explained that the clauses referred to, Nos. 28 and 29, were embodied in legislation framed in 1907, and in the present Bill merely tightened up that legislation. He held that there was nothing retrospective in their action, and that they would apply to the future only. The Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. J. G. Coates, Mr. W. D. Lysnar( Gisborne), and Mr. D. Jones (Mid-Canterbury) each raised the point. Mr. Jones in particular pressed the Minister to explain the clauses,

and Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Riccarton) echoed the plea. He quoted from the United Part3 r manifesto, which liad the caption, “Unite for Freedom.” He held that there did not seem as* if there would be much freedom in uniting. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Central Otago) : Get a divorce. Mr. Kyle: That is the legal mind of the hon. member at work. Mr. Kyle said that he did not think there was any need for a divorce. He later hinted that the Opposition would let the Bill go through if the clauses were explained in detail. Explaining, the Minister said that clauses 28 and 29 comprised legislation already on the Statute Book, placed there by the Reform Government. The only effect was that the clause regarding a man and his wife as owners of land had been tightened up. This applied to limited areas of land only. The clause would deal with the future, and would not be retrospective in effect. Under the clauses, land would be acquired only when it had been considered to be aggregated. ’ There would be no hardship on anyone, and owners would get the full market value for it. Answering Mr. Lysnar, Mr. Forbes said that he would be pleased to submit the retrospective aspect to the law draftsman. Mr. Lysnar: If you’d said that at first I would have been satisfied.