MR HOLLAND’S ATTACK

Wairarapa Times-Age, 12 August 1943, Page 3

MR HOLLAND’S ATTACK

MEASURE DENOUNCED AS ILL-CONSIDERED

POSTPONEMENT URGED.

POINTS OF AGREEMENT & DIFFERENCE.

(Bv Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON This Day. “The policy of this Government is to nationalise the land, and that is precisely what this Bill sets out to do,” said the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, who followed the Minister of Lands in the debate. The name of the soldier, he added, was being used to cloak the real intention and determination of the Government. He urged postponement of the Bill for further consideration.

Mr Holland, said it was obvious from *the speech of the Minister of Lands that the Bill was an ill-con-sidered measure. On many points of the Bill there would be general agreement. All would agree that a great many of the soldiers coming back would want to settle on the land, and the Opposition and the Government alike acknowledged the right of the soldiers to have some land. There would also be general agreement that settlement must be on a sound basis. The soldiers only wanted a reasonable opportunity to make good, and they were prepared to work hard for their success. The Opposition was just as keen as anyone to help in the solution of the problem of soldier settlement. The soldiers were entitled to sympathetic consideration and treatment. The average soldier did not want to see his success achieved at the expense of other people.

Mr Holland said he was not one who held that everything done after the last war was a mistake. Though there had been some heartbreaking experiences, a great many men who had been settled on the land had macle a great success. The payment of high prices for land and the settlement of men with no previous experience were the two mistakes made after the last war, and it was up to them to see that the same mistakes did not occur this time.

CAUSES OF INFLATION. Discussing the cause of inflated land values, Mr Holland said he believed they were due in the main to the desire of thrifty people for security by the investment of their savings. To these people land offered some attraction. High land values were bad for New Zealand, for they caused increased costs which could not be deflated when normal times returned without human misery. He believed everyone in the House was opposed to speculation and inflated values, through there might be differences of opinion as to the best means of controlling the situation.

“I suggest that this Bill is misnamed,” said Mr Holland. “It has nothing 'to do with the settlement of soldiers, and could be more appropriately named the State Control and Nationalisation of Land Bill. Mr Holland said there was no mention as to what say the producer would have in the sale of his produce. The Bill exposed the fact that after nearly four years the Government had no plan for the settlement of soldiers on the land. The Bill did nbt even mention the settlement of soldiers. It provided for pure and unadulterated State control in all land transactions. It was aimed at every owner of property in this country. “No person who owns a farm, factory or shop will be able to dispose of it without a permit, Mr Holland continued. “It will come as a surprise to people who have purchased a home to know that their freedom to do what they like with their own property has been taken away from them. Every farm, regardless of its size, every factory, shop and home 1 is controlled by this Bill. The policy of this Government is to destroy private ownership and to make everyone tenants of the State and that is what this Bill does.”

Mr Holland said that soldiers would protest against the measures when they realised that rights had been filched. The stranglehold of bureauracy was being applied tighter and tighter, and the Bill was just another instalment of State socialism. The Government was applying its domestic policy in war time and using the name of the soldier to cloak its intentions. The Bill would destroy private ownership of land. The Eill denied the right to the freehold. The Government which took the land appointed the three members of the Court. The vendor found that the dice was heavily loaded against him. The Bill established a huge department of State, and increased costs would be loaded on to the people of this country. SURVEY OF FARM LANDS. Mi' Holland said the first thing required was an immediate survey of the farm lands of the Dominion to find out what areas were available for closer settlement. That was overdue. Another alternative suggested by Mr Holland was that land brought after the passing of the Bill should not be sold without authority at a higher price than was paid for it. This, he claimed, would be an effective curb of speculation. (Government laughter.)

The Minister of Lands: “But that would take away individual freedom to buy and sell land, would it not? It would be State control.” Mr Holland: “No. Of course it would not.”

Mr Holland contended that if the Dominion could afford to finance the war, then it should afford the money to settle the returning men on the land.” The scope of the Land Boards should be extended, he said, to determine a fair basis of value of land on which it was proposed to settle soldiers.

Summing up, Mr Holland denounced the Bill as another new procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land by the State. It prohibited the right of every owner of property, to sell without authority, and it was a further step along the road to the Government’s goal •of Solialism. The Bill would be sternly contested by the Opposition. It should be postponed till something more practicable had been worked out. DEFENCE OF THE BILL. “The speech of the Leader of the Opposition was a very good one in support of the old order of speculation, and booms and slumps,” said Mr Schramm (Government, Auckland East). The success of the Bill, he continued, would depend on the constitution of the Land Sales Committees and the court, "whose personnel should be chosen for their standing in the community and ability. I never knew it was a democratic right for an individual to claim the unearned increment of land when thousands of men were away fighting and would later be coming back wanting land to settle on.” PRODUCTION VALUE. Doubts as to whether the Bill would achieve its object of preventing speculation was expressed by Mr Pol Son (Opposition, Stratford). No one would suggest, he said, that the soldier should pay more for land than its productive value. At the same time the formula provided for this in the Bill was outrageous and would not work out as the Government intended. If the Land Sales Committees did not disregard the formula the State would find itself paying more in certain cases than land was worth. It was not a. practical formula.

The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser: “Will the honourable gentleman in the committee stage make suggestions about the formula?”

Mr Polson: “I will be glad to do so.” Mr Polson said the Bill did not provide for the liberal treatment of the returned men which the Government had promised them on going overseas. He said he objected to the court beingallowed to call in what might be ex parte evidence, thus going behind the backs of the owners.

The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10.30 p.m.