LAND BILL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XL, Issue 9146, 31 October 1919, Page 6

LAND BILL

THE MEASURE PASSED

(Per Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, October 30. In the. House of Representatives tonight tho debate on the second reading of the Land Laws Amendment Bill was resumed by Mr Wilford, who complained that the measure would not, in its present state, "cause land to be put to more productive use or deal adequately with aggregation. The ,area of holdings should be limited according to quality. Government, acquisition for soldier or other settlement should be expedited and purchases made, where decided upon, before March next, so as to avoid paying owners the. self-assessed valuation that could be demanded after March.

Mr Young urged the modification of restrictions which, in certain cases, pressed unduly on settlers, instancing the case of a man whose two sons were dead, one having been killed at the war. The father was now unable to carry oii, yet because a section of 152 acres exceeded .£4OOO in value.he could not dispose of it under his particular tenure.

Mr 'Anstey considered that the Bill failed completely to meet the need for opening up. sufficient lands to settle soldiers and others waiting to become farmers. He objected to what was called unimproved land being given away. Touching on the Government's claim to have put large numbers of settlers on the-J and, Mr Anstey quoted figures for the South Island showing that though 64 soldiers were placed on the land the actual number of holdings decreased by 36 during the 1917----18 period. Graduated taxation must be made more effective to prevent aggregation. .

. The Minister, in reply to criticisms, explained that the' proposed homestead system "would result in settling some lands at present unproductive. An honest attempt was being made to deal with aggregation, and if the provisions therefor were found ineffective further steps would be taken. The Government wanted to give relief where possible in cases pressing hardly on beneficiaries, so long as the concession granted did not conduce to aggregation by families.

The Bill was read a second time. In committee, on clause 10, subsection 5, Mr Witty objected to a selector being prevented from transferring his license. If he must surrender he should receive the value of tho unearned increment. The Minister said that the outgoing tenant received the value of his improvomonts from the incoming tenant. Ho had been advised that the suggested provision was not needed. Subsequently the Minister agreed to provide a safeguard' on the lines suggested.

Mr' Parr said that if the consent of the' Minister was made a condition precedent to transfer. it would meet the case

The Minister agreed to accept this suggestion. He also agreed to extend to five years the period wherein returned soldiers may acquire the free simple.

Tho committee then proceeded to consider the clauses .in the Bill designed to stop aggregation. Clause 19 was struck out, and the Minister proposed a neAV clause providing that any aggregated, land taken by the Ci'oavii .shall be paid for by the Crown-in* the'-manner provided by the Public Works Act, 1908, but such" compensation shall not exceed the Government valuation as herein defined, with an additional 10 per • cent.,' and' together also Avith. the value of all improvements effected on the land since the date of its acquistion by way'of aggregation.

Mr Pearce contended that this would: work unfairly in different, districts as the-Government valuation in one district might be recent, in which case the owner would receive fair value for' the land, but in another district"the valuation might be six or 'seven years old," in which case'the price" would be too loav. He said he supported an/amendment as follows: "Provided such valuation be made Avithin one year of such land' being acquired by the Government." • " ; v*:u *:

The Minister said if Mr Pearce made it two years he ivould accept it.

Mr Anderson said he understood the idea of the clause was to punish aggregation. If the clause was so amended it would only encourage it.

Mr Witty protested against paying 10 per cent, in adJdition to valuation, as tending to enrich the aggregator at the expense of the incoming tenant. ■ Mr Anstey declared that tho only fair Avay to arrive at Agination was by arbitration.

After a lengthy discussion a division was taken, when the amendment was lost by 16 to 33. The Minister then moved that the valuation should he within two years of the land being acquired by the Government.

; Mr Anderson and Mr Holland protested against this concession to the aggregators, bxit on a division it was agreed to by 28 to 19, and the clause as amended was passed. The Minister then moA'ed a further amendment, making tho Act nonretrospective. Mr, Anderson saidl they had set out to stop aggregation, but e\*ery amendment proposed was only making it easier. The Hon D. Buddo described tho clause as a "whitewashing" clause. Mr Massey said they could not punish crime committed before the Act passed. Mr Veitch said that was done when military defaulters were deprived of civil rights, and the Prime Minister was an ardent supporter of that. Ho warned the Government that the people were in earnest about stopping aggregation, while the Government was playing with it. Mr Massey advised the House not to pass retrospectiA-e legislation, except in extreme cases. The Government had! amplo poAver to take land aggregated before the passing oi this 8i11... ' ' Sir Joseph Ward; said in that ease the holder got an increased price. Mr Massey combatted this. He did not think that any aggregator could make a big profit. .-■■ ... ..... ■ On a division the amendment was lost by 23 to 22. . Noav clause 26, making modificationsin restrictions as to acquisition of landunder the Land Settlement Finance, Act was agreed-to.--: The Bill then-■■ was. reported wtith-< amendments, read a third time, and.