CONFIDENT TONE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 13 August 1943, Page 3

CONFIDENT TONE

TAKEN BY PRIME MINISTER

IN DEBATE ON LAND SALES BILL,

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM INVITED.

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day.

“The principles in the Bill are the embodiment of the Government’s and the country’s desire to carry out the pledges given by everyone to the soldiers when they, went overseas,” declared the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, in the House of Representatives last night, during the second reading debate on the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Bill.

“They are an endeavour," he added, “to implement the sentiments that have been uttered in past years all over the country, and this is an opportunity for the Opposition and everyone to prove the worth of their promises.” It was irrelevant and a figment of anaemic imagination to say that the Bill aimed at the nationalisation of land, said Mr Fraser. The criticism expressed by ratepayers’ associations, chambers of commerce, and real estate agents came from the same people, and they were not defending the soldiers’ case, but were trying to make it possible for vested interests to batten on the soldiers. * Opposition cries of “No! No!”

The Prime Minister said the provisions of the Bill were exactly the same as those in the Small Farms Amendment Act, 1940, in regard to the safeguarding of land owned by serving soldiers. ULTERIOR MOTIVES DENIED. Mr Fraser declared there was no ulterior motive in the Bill, the only motive being the fulfilment of the solemn pledges given by the late Prime Minister, Mr Savage, and himself, and echoed by everybody in the country. “This Bill is the first step toward the fulfilment of those pledges,” he added. Helpful criticism was wanted and the Government was asking for it. “We want the goodwill of all the people to provide the best legislation for the most successful settlement of returned men on the land and in industry. The country will stretch out its hands to welcome the men, but no one will be allowed to put their hands in the soldiers’ pockets,” he continued. It would be a tragedy and a disgrace to the country if the men who went through the campaigns of Greece, Libya, and North Africa came back to find themselves economically defeated. Mr Fraser said there had been leading articles lauding the Government's decision to conscript human life to fight for the country and democracy, and rightly so. They had applauded the taking of men away from their homes to be sent into industry and the placing of barriers on the rights of employers and employees to discuss wages and conditions. But it was a. different story today when this Bill was brought forward. Newspapers and Opposition member’s deplored anything being done when it was a case of controlling land for the benefit of the people and the soldiers. EVERYBODY AGREED. Everybody agreed with the principles of the Bill and no one would say there was not a danger of an aggregation of land and houses with values soaring to ruinous heights, said Mr Fraser. Everyone would agree there should be no exploitation. “Has any one of the critics come forward and suggested any alternative to this measure?” he asked.

Mr Polson (Opposition, Stratford) interjected that the Opposition had suggestions to offer in the committee stage. The Prime Minister: “I will be glad to have them. That is the spirit we want to find.”

In fixing the computation of the productive value of land on a capitalisation of 41 per’ cent the Government had been more generous than in any previous legislation, the Prime Minister said. The duration of the measure had been fixed at five years after the war, because it was felt that was a fair period for the settlement of all soldiers if rehabilitation were a success. The Land Sales Committees would not be creatures of the Government, and the three members of the Land Sales Court would be selected because of their judicial capacity and their knowledge of land operations. COURT AND COMMITTEES. “Some critics say we are going to rob the farmers, others that we are going to give them too much,” said Mr Fraser. “We say that we believe that the competent land sales committees and the Land Sales Court will see that justice is done.”

A case of a house and land which had been sold for £1450, resold for £1650, and then sold again for £2150 was quoted by Mr Fraser. A returned soldier who bought that property would have to carry an intolerable burden of debt when private building and the State housing scheme were resumed.

Referring to claims that the Government was denying the privilege of the freehold to the soldier, the Prime Minister said that soldiers of the last war had apparently shown no enthusiasm for the freehold. Out of 3968 who had taken up Government land leases only 382 had exercised the right to acquire the freehold. That was less than onetenth.

The Government, said Mr Fraser, was anxious that men returning from the war should be settled on the land without a burden of debt and with a chance to make good. It would be made abundantly clear that houses would not be taken for any purpose. The question of the acquisition of Native land for Maori soldiers must be considered. He was told, however, that the Native Land Department thought that so much land would be offered voluntarily by the Native owners that there would be no need for compulsory acquisition. The Macri soldiers should get the same opportunity for land settlement and 'the same support as every other soldier who went to the war. productive value. Mr Fraser read statements by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, that land settlement should be an essential part of the rehabilitation scheme, but that the guiding principle in all land settlement must be settlement at the productive value and no more. “How does the Opposition propose to arrive at the productive value

other than by the method in the Bill?” asked the Prime Minister. “In this House and in the' country there is no difference of opinion about the objective of the measure, but only about how the job is to be done. There has been no mention of any other way. The members of the Opposition do not stand for the exploitation of the soldiers and the country. These are their professions, and I want to see them implemented. No other scheme has been produced, and it is easy to try and denounce and destroy this one, and to evade suggesting something better.” Replying to an interjection by Mr Doidge as to whether he would give the men the freehold, the Prime Minister said he would not object. That matter would be discussed with the men concerned. However, if values were kept right as provided for in the Bill the problem of the leasehold or the freehold became more or less academic. POSTPONEMENT URGED. The opinion that the Government would be well advised to take time for further reconsideration of the Bill was expressed by Mr Lee (Democratic Labour, Grey Lynn). “I cannot help feeling,” said Mr Lee, “that the Government really thought that this was a great electioneering Bill. There is, however, the danger that by putting it through now it might do great disservice to the cause it is designed io serve.”

There was much to be said for the Prime Minister's suggestion that the House should agree on certain affirmations respecting the Bill, continued Mr Lee. As it dealt with soldier settlement and also altered the whole basis of land tenure it would not be unreasonable for the new House after the election to set up a committee and spend three months examining the Bill in detail. It was difficult in times of flux to Jay down a firm policy for rehabilitation. It was also difficult, if not impossible, to fix a basis of productive value at a time when produce values were unstable. Under the present system of settlement, Mr Lee contended the real benefit went to the financiers. W e should start with a scheme affecting excess land,” he added. “Why attempt to bring one down which affects every person who has only sufficient land for his own use? We are in grave danger of causing people to fight a measure that is designed to help the soldier.” . ■

The only way to solve the housing problem, Mr Lee said,, was to build more houses.

AN OBVIOUS DUTY. The Government would only be doing an obvious duty if it could prevent a repetition of what happened in the settlement of returned men after the last war, said the Minister of Health, Mr Nordmeyer. Referring to the enhancement of land values he said that in 1912 the capital value of the land in New Zealand was £315.000.000. and in 1928 it had risen to £618.000,000. In the same period (he mortgages on the land had increased from £88,000,000 to £302,000,000. There was nothing new in the proposal to have transfers of land sanctioned by an authority. Every transaction concerning the transfer of leasehold Crown land had to be approved by a Land Board under the existing legislation. If the board considered the suggested price excessive it required an adjustment or refused its consent. The present Bill proposed to apply the same principle to freehold land, the consent to be given by an impartial judicial authority.

QUESTION OF METHODS. “It is unreasonable to ask men who have to face their constituents in an election campaign to discuss the basic principles of this measure in a . cool and collected way,”' said Sir Apirana Ngata (Opposition, Eastern Maori). He said that no one controverted the purposes of the Bill, and that everyone wanted to see proper provision made for the settlement of returned soldiers. The question was what was the right way to go about it. The part of the Bill dealing with compensation and stabilisation of values was giving a good deal of concern.. Sir Apirana Ngata said that the Prime Minister had nearly disposed of the possible objections of the Maori members and the Maori people, and he was glad to hear him say that Part Two of the Bill was not to apply to Maori land or to land .owned by Natives. The Bill as worded undoubtedly included Native land and several classes of owned bv Natives that did not come within the legal definition of Native land.