UNJUST TO OWNERS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 197, 20 August 1943, Page 2

UNJUST TO OWNERS

MR. HAMILTON'S VIEWS PRODUCTIVE VALUE ISSUE (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Speaking in the debate on the Servicemen's Settlement and Land Sales Bill, the Minister in Charge of War Expenditure, Mr. Hamilton, said that in statements from the Government benches regarding land values, no consideration seemed to be given to the effort which made unimproved lands valuable. His own opinion was that three-quarters of the capital value of country lands belonged to the farmer, and not to the State.

The bill could not attain its objective of stabilisation of land values, and it was unjust to owners because they could not cancel negotiations if they were not satisfied with the Court's decision, though the Minister under the powers of the bill could back out. The Minister of Lands. Mr. Barclay: Either vendor or purchaser can cancel the deal.

Mr. Hamilton contended that the Minister was wrong, and when he was challenged by Government members to provide an alternative method of stabilising land values, he said that the soundest method of buying farm land was to negotiate with the owners, while possessing power to deal with the unreasonable vendor. His method of stabilising values was to set the prices prevailing on the stabilisation date, December 15, 1942, as the ceiling prices,' and allowing sales to proceed subject to that limitation. The soundest way of settling the productive value was to accept the judgment of the buyers and sellers in various localities as at the stabilisation date.

Mr. Forbes (National, Hurunui) said he could not understand why it was necessary to make such a radical change in the land laws. He did not 'know why the Lands for Settlement Act should be abandoned. One of the weaknesses in the present bill was that the Minister took land. Under the Lands Settlement Act there was a judge and assessors. Referring to the cutting up of the Flaxbourne estate many years ago, Mr. Forbes said that books had to be produced to prove the carrying capacity of the land. The price paid by the Government was based on the productive value. The present Government was talking to-day as if productive value re , 3, n $Y tnin S Just discovered, the bill did not say who was going to advise the Minister under the Lands for Settlement Act. The cards were on the table, and one knew what was going to be done.